Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"12. On careful perusal of the previous proceedings it can be seen that first party, first of all wrongly approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bangalore. Thereafter again first party wrongly approached the II Addl. Labour Court under Sec. 10(4-A) of the ID Act. It appears that because of first party approaching wrong forums and filing claim petition under wrong provision of law there is abnormal delay on the part of the first party. It appears that first party though made sincere efforts about challenging the dismissal order but before the wrong forum. It appears that first party might not have been properly given advise about the amended provision of

-

law, therefore the delay is caused. For these reasons it appears that first party is justified in raising the dispute after lapse of 17 years. Hence I answer this issue in the affirmative."

20. The learned Single Judge has also considered the question of delay and had agreed with the finding of the Labour Court that the delay was on account of approaching the wrong forum and that it stood explained. Having considered the contentions advanced and the decisions relied on, we find no grounds to differ from the findings. This is more so in view of the fact that the workmen had been agitating their case since the first order of punishment. The Apex Court in S.M. Nilajkar and others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 27, and Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301, has held that the delay, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny relief to workmen, who had no other means of securing redressal for their grievances. The question of delay, if any, in initiating the proceedings can be taken into account while considering the question of backwages. The Apex Court has