Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Kamble vs Superintendent Engineer on 9 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6968 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
PRAKASH KAMBLE S/O SHRI K.K. KAMBLE, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O E-2/226 ARERA COLONY BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER CHANDBAD
M.P.E.B. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER SUB DIVISION (SOUTH )
TULSI NAGAR M.P.E.B. BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. 1
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. INDUSTRIAL COURT BRANCH BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. M.P.E.B. THROUGH ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (N AND
R) BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal in Case No.517/88MPIR whereby the petitioner's claim for Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 7:46:30 PM 2 promotion to the higher post was rejected and leaned Labour Court only directed that since the ACR Entry recorded for the year 1985 was not valid, the petitioner's case should be considered by the concerned authority within three months of receipt of the order.
Petitioner is also assailing the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bhopal in Case No.29/MPIR97 (Superintending Engineer M.P.E.B Bhopal versus Prakash Kamble) whereby vide order dated 30.7.2002, the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the employe had filed application for a cause of action, which had arisen in the years 1982, 1985 and on 11.4.1986 claiming the relief on 16.8.1988, which was held to be barred by limitation in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 provides for a limitation of two years for commencement of the proceedings. The Industrial Court held that since the proceedings had commenced prior to two years, therefore, the application was not maintainable.
On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the approach of the Industrial Court in defeating a claim on the touchstone of technicality of limitation cannot be given a seal of approval especially when Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 specifically provides that the Labour Court may, for sufficient reasons, admit any application for a declaration that a change is illegal under the Act after the expiry of three months from the date on which such change was made.
In view of the said proviso to Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, the hyper-technical approach of the Industrial Court cannot be given a seal of approval. Hence, the order of the Industrial Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 7:46:30 PM 3 Court setting aside the order of the Labour Court only on the ground of limitation deserves to and is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part. Parties to bear their own costs.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 7:46:30 PM