Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M.J. Francis and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-03-02
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P1 order of the Labour Court set aside.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P1 order set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

M.J. Francis
The Labour Court, Ernakulam
The Deputy Tahsildar, (R.R), Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. P. Vijayamma
• Sri. V. Krishna Menon
• Sri. U.K. Devidas
• Sri. Prinsun Philip

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. H.B. Shenoy
• Sri. B. Ashok Shenoy
• Sri. Lakshmi B. Shenoy
• Sri. Abu Mathew
• Sri. Sobhan George
• Sri. K.V. George
• Government Pleader Sri. Manoj Kunjachan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner-management, Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd., challenges Ext.P1, an order under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), in CP 37/2007 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The dispute concerns wages claimed for a period 1989–1995, asserted by the petitioner as arrears due to the employee’s status as a Printer under the Bechawath award for non-journalist factory staff. The Respondent-workman was terminated in 1995, with a pending industrial adjudication on termination. The core question is whether the claim for back wages can be entertained after a long delay. The Labour Court granted relief under Section 33-C(2), which the High Court reviews de novo. Although ID Acts’ tribunals are not bound by the Limitation Act, as established in precedents (Nityanand M. Joshi v. LIC; AIR 1970 SC 209), courts may still evaluate delay and mould relief (Ajaib Singh; Kuldeep Singh). The High Court emphasizes the principle that employees in long-ago disputes should not be allowed to sleep on their rights, and the employer-employee certainty is affected by inordinate delays. Given the prolonged gap (1989–1995 to 2007–2010), the Court finds the Ext.P1 order unjustified and sets it aside, allowing the writ petition. The result is that the Labour Court’s order is quashed and the relief denied.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Limitation Act, 1963

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the employee, described as a Printer, was entitled to wages of a Printer under the Bechawath award for non-journalist factory employees; the claim under Section 33-C(2) seeks arrears for 1989–1995. Since the termination occurred in 1995 and the claim was raised in 2007, the core issue is stale claim and delay. The management argues long inaction and stale claim; the hardship to prove defence after 12–18 years should bar relief. The petitioner emphasizes the ID Act’s unique stance on limitation but accepts that delay can be considered to mould relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-workman argues the claim is timely under general ad hoc considerations but the delay is unacceptable; the Labour Court did adjudicate on documents; however, the long lapse from 1989–1995 to 2007–2010 warrants setting aside. They rely on the lack of timely initiation and the need for finality in employer-employee relations.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nityanand M. Joshi and Another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others	AIR 1970 SC 209	Positive	Cited to support that ID Courts are not bound by Limitation Act principles.
Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service Society Limited and another	1999 (6) SCC 82	Positive	Cited to endorse that delay can be considered and relief moulded.
Kuldeep Singh v. G.M Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another	AIR 2011 SC 455	Positive	Cited to reinforce that delay can be examined to mould relief.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 20148 of 2010 (P)** **---------------------------IN CP 37/2007 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 006, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADVS.SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. M.J.FRANCIS, MUPPARATHARA, KUMARAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.** **2. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (R.R), KOTTAYAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY R1 BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABU MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GEORGE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs.** _**WP(C).No. 20148 of 2010 (P)**_ ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2009 IN C.P. NO.37/2007.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------** **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **RVS.** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No. 20148 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02[nd] day of March, 2015** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner-management, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, passed under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The brief facts required for the adjudication of the above dispute is that the petitioner was allegedly an Assistant Printer, from 1989-1995, in which latter year he was terminated from service. The termination is the subject of the industrial adjudication and this Court is not concerned with that at present. In the Section 33 C (2) application, filed before the Labour Court, the petitioner had sought for arrears of wages between 1989 and 1995. 2. The claim raised was specifically that the petitioner was a Printer and that he is entitled to the wages paid to a Printer as provided in the Bechawath WPC.No.20148/2010 : 2 : award with respect to non-journalists-factory employees of the newspaper establishment. The petitioner primarily relied on a writ petition filed by the management, where he was described as a Printer and also on some other documents. 3. The primary contention raised by the management is that, the claim is raised after 12 years of the termination and has to be rejected as a stale one. The learned counsel for the workman however, would contend that stale claims and prescription of limitation are essentially to protect the other side from being prejudiced insofar as being not able to establish a defence, which could have been established properly, if the claim had been raised at the proper time. In the present case, all documents were produced and adjudication was properly conducted; is the contention. 4. This Court would only first consider the WPC.No.20148/2010 : 3 : issue as to whether there is any delay and that whether the same would stand against the application under Section 33 C(2). 5. The Labour Courts are special Courts constituted under the I.D Act and would not be bound by the principles of limitation, as laid down in the Limitation Act of 1963.[ **Nityanand M.Joshi and Another v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (AIR 1970 SC 209)** ]. However, in considering the relief the Court can definitely look into the aspect of delay and mould the relief as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cumprocessing Service Society Limited and another (1999 (6) SCC 82)** and **Kuldeep Singh v. G.M Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another. (AIR 2011 SC 455)** . Hence the accepted proposition is that, though there is no delay WPC.No.20148/2010 : 4 : as such, prescibed under the ID Act, definitely, the Court could look into the delay caused and decide on the relief, giving due consideration on the question of delay. 6. True, as has been stated by the workman, there was an adjudication effected before the Labour Court on documents produced by either side. However, when considering the stale application, one has also to consider the fact that the two parties who are in a legal relationship, herein employer-employee, would expect some certainity regarding their affairs on sheer passage of time. Herein, the petitioner admittedly was appointed in the year 1989 and had been continuing till 1995, in the management company drawing certain amount of wages. As has been emphasised in various Supreme Court judgments, the conscious omission of the legislature to provide limitation under the I.D Act, is considering the fact that the employer and the employee does not stand on the same footing and the employee always is at a disadvatageous position. The employee WPC.No.20148/2010 : 5 : often times, would not be able to initiate a proper adjudication, as provided under the various enactments, for reason only of fear of termination. However, it is to be noticed that the I.D Act quite aptly takes into consideration such instances also. A discussion of the same may not be relevant in the present circumstances. 7. Suffice it to notice, that such an apprehension or fear did not hamper the workman herein; since in 1995 he had already been terminated. An industrial adjudication was pending consideration with respect to the termination, before the appropriate forum. Nothing prevented the workman from raising a claim under Section 33 C(2) before the Labour Court for the wages between 1989 and 1995. The workman sought to raise such a claim after 12 years from his termination, i,e in 2007. The delay with respect to the claim made from 1989 to 1995 ranges between 18 to 12 years. This Court cannot commend a claim being considered by the Labour Court at this distance of time. In such WPC.No.20148/2010 : 6 : circumstance, Ext.P1 order would be set aside, for the unexplained long delay. Writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P1 order of the Labour Court. Sd/- **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge