1 2026:CGHC:14028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 256 of 2019 1 - Fattelal Sahu S/o Shri Maniram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bhootha, Post Bade Raveli, Police Station - Malkharauda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Labour Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Labour Commissioner, Block - 3, I I Nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Labour Commissioner Room No. 73, 74 Joint Building, Collectorate Premises, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record pertaining to petitioner. -2- 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the letter dated 09/01/2019 passed by respondent no.2 and Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. 10.3 Any other relief in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed by the respondent/State on 01.02.1993 on the post of Office Assistant as Daily Wage Employee. Service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 31.12.1997. 3. The petitioner preferred an application before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2018. The conciliation between the parties could not succeed and as such the failure report was sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner/respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground that the dispute was time barred. 4. It is well settled principle of law that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. In the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing- Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another, reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82, the Supreme Court in para 10 observed thus:- "10............ the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to 3 be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages.......…” This dictum was followed subsequently in the case of Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal, Govt. College of Education and others, reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was declined by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the case for reference was time barred. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 27, further observed that the delay can be considered while granting the relief in adjudication process. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 without considering the prejudice caused to other side and further whether the delay was fatal, declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. 8. For the reasons stated-above, the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P/-1) is set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to refer the dispute within a period of two weeks to the -4- Labour Court for adjudication from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha