Holding

Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Industrial Disputes Act proceedings, and a workman cannot be denied relief solely on the ground of delay; the Labour Court award is upheld with a partial back‑wage modification.

Summary

Ajaib Singh, a workman, was terminated on 16 July 1974 and alleged that the employer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred to a Labour Court in 1982, which awarded reinstatement with full back wages, but the employer challenged the award in the High Court on the ground of the workman's seven‑year delay in filing his demand. The High Court dismissed the workman's claim, holding that the delay barred relief, a decision affirmed by a Division Bench. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and that delay alone cannot deprive a workman of statutory relief. The Court emphasized the social‑welfare purpose of the Act and that any plea of delay must be proved with actual prejudice. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court was upheld, but the back‑wage component was modified to 60% for the period of delay. The appeal was allowed and costs awarded to the appellant.

Issues considered

The applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether a workman's delay in filing a demand can be a ground to deny relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the High Court could set aside the Labour Court award without a plea of limitation being raised.
The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the reference made by the appropriate government.
The appropriate quantum of back wages when relief is granted after a substantial delay.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Defence of India Rules
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 33-C(2), s. 37-C
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 137

Subjects

Industrial disputeTermination of serviceLimitation ActLabour Court jurisdictionReinstatementBack wagesSocial welfare legislationProcedural delay

Judgment

AJAIB SINGH A
v.
THE SIRHIND COOPERATIVE MARKETING CUM
PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR.

APRIL 8, 1999
B
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Labour Laws :

Termination of workman-Termination without complying with the C
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act-Demand of reinstatement by the
workman after 7 years- Matter referred by the appropriate government to
the Labour Court-Management did not take the plea of limitation in
reference of dispute before the labour court-Held, not having raised such
plea, workmen could not be deprived of the benefits of the Act-More so D
when the object of the Act was to create social welfare-Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, history traced and object restated-Trade Disputes Act, 1929 (as
amended in 1938)- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945-
Defence of India Rules, Rule Bl-A-Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137.

Practice and Procedure-Plea-New plea-Cannot be taken at the E
appellate stage to deprive the benefits of the social welfare statutes-Findings
offacts returned by the High Court in writ proceedings, without pleading-
Unjustified-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226, 227-Interference on
findings of fact by lower courts-Jurisdiction-Administrative Law.

Interpretation ofStatues-Interpretation of Welfare Statutes-Statements F
of objects and reasons-Relevancy of-Constitution of India, 1950, Part IV-
Welfare State.

The services of the appellant were terminated without compliance of
the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was G
referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court. The management
justified their action on the ground that the workman, being a salesman, had
embezzled thousands of rupees. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to
entertain and adjudicate the reference was also disputed Labour Court
directed reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages. The management
did not press the issue of jurisdiction before the Labour Court. Management H
505
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the award mainly on
.·~ the ground that the workman had approached the labour court i.tfter a
prolonged delay. It was not in dispute that the service of the workman was
terminated on 16.7.1974 and he had issued the notice of demand only on
8.12.1981. Single Judge of the High Court held that the workman was not
entitled to any relief as he had slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted
B with the management at a belated stage when it might have been difficult for
o the employer to prove the guilt of the workman. Division Bench of the High
Court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, Hence this appeal.

It was contended by the management-respondent that the principle
C incorporated under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act though
not specifically made applicable yet it would be deemed to be applicable in a
case under the Industrial Dispute Act for the purpose of making a reference
under Section 10 thereof. It was contended by the workman that the principles
--..
incorporated under Article 137 cannot be held to be applicable under the Act
for the purposes of making a reference of the dispute to the labour court and
D that the provision of the Act was a social welfare legislation intended to
protect the interest of the workmen employed in various industries.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation
E Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes
Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workmen only on the
ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to
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
F questioned on the ground of delay. The tribunal, labour court or board,
dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant
back wages to the workmen 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 offull
back wages.
G
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopa/ Bhiva & Ors., [1964] 3 SCR 709; Town
Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors., [1970)
1 SCR 51; Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd, [1953] SCR 709; AIR (1953) SC 98;
Sakura v. Tanaji, Am (1958) SC; Nityanand M Joshi v. LIC of India, [1970)
1SCR396; Jai Bhagwan v. Management of the Ambala Central Cooperative
H Bank Ltd & Anr., AIR (1984) SC 286 and H.MT. Ltd v. Labour Court,
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY 507
Ernaku/am & Ors. (1994) LLR 720 (SC), relied on. A
1.2. It is not the function of the court to prescribe the limitation where
the Legislature in its wisdom had though it fit not to prescribe any period.
The courts admittedly interpret law and do not make laws. Personal view of
the Judges presiding the court cannot be stretched to authorise them to
interpret law in such a manner which would amount to legislation B
intentionally left over by the Legislature. [516-D]

Ram Chander Morya v. State ofHaryana, (1999) 1 SCT 141, overruled.

1.3. In the instant case, the respondent-management is not shown to
have taken any plea regarding delay as is evident from the issues framed by C
the labour court. The only plea raised in defence was that the labour court
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the termination of the
services of the workmen was justified. Had this plea been raised, the workmen
would have been in a position to show the circumstances preventing him in
approaching the Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court the D
such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the
government. The High Court was not justified in holding that the workmen
had not given any explanation as to why the demand notice had been issued
after a long period. The findings of facts returned by the High Court in writ
proceedings, even without pleadings were not justified in holding that the
courts were bound to render an even handed justice by keeping balance E
between the two different parties. Such an approach totally ignores the aims
and objects especially the social object sought to be achieved by the Act. Even
after noticing that "it is true that a fight between the workmen and
management is not a just fight between equals", the High Court was not
justified to make them equals while returning the findings, which if allowed
to prevail, would result in frustration of the purpose of the enactment. The F
workman appears to be justified in complaining that in the absence of any
plea on behalf of the management and any evidence, regarding delay, he could
not be deprived of the benefits under the Act merely on technicalities oflaw.
The High Court appears to have substituted its opinion for the opinion of the
labour court which was not permissible in proceedings under Article 226/ G
227 of the Constitution. However, on account of admitted delay, the labour
court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying the appellant-
workmen some part of the back wages.

2.1. It cannot be disputed that the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 was
brought on the statute book with the object to ensure social justice to both H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A the employers and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing
about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties.
It is a piece of legislation providing and regulating the service condition of
the workers. The object of the Act is to improve the service conditions of
industrial labour so as to provide them the ordinary amenities of life by the
B process, to bring about industrial peace which would in its turn accelerate
productive acti".ity of the country resulting in its prosperity. The prosperity
of the country in turn, helps to improve the conditions of labour. The Act is
intended not only to make provision for investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes but also to serve the industrial peace so that it may result
in more production and improve the national economy in the present social
C political system, it is intended to achieve cooperation between the capital and
labour which has been deemed to be essential for maintenance of increased
production and industrial peace. The Act provides to ensure higher terms
to workmen and to prevent disputes between the employers and employees so
that the large interests of public may not suffer. The provisions of the Act
have to be interpreted in a manner which advance the object of the Legislature
D contemplated in the statement of objects and reasons. While interpreting
different provision of the Act, attempt should be made to avoid industrial
unrest, secure industrial peace and to provide machinery to secure the end.
Conciliation is a most important and desirable way to secure that end. In
dealing with industrial disputes, course have always emphasized doctrine of
E social justice which is founded on basic ideal of socio-economic equality as
enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. While construing the
provisions of the Act, the Courts have to give them a construction which
should help in achieving the object of the Act.

Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 948,
F referred to.

2.2. The history of the legislation with respect to the industrial disputes
would show that for the first time in the year 1920 the Trade Disputes Act
was enacted which provided for Courts of Inquiry and Conciliation Boards
G and forbade strikes in public utility service without a statutory notice in
writing. The said Act did not make any provision for any machinery for
settling of Industrial disputes. The said Act was repealed and repliced by the
Trade Disputes Act, 1929 which started the State intervention in the settl~ment
of industrial disputes and armed the Government with the power which could
be used whenever considered fj.t to intervene in industrial disputes. This Act
H was amended in the year 1938 authorising the Central and Provincial

II
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY 509

Government to appoint conciliation officers for mediating in or promoting A
the settlement of industrial disputes Shortly thereafter the Government of
India promulgated the Defence of .India Rules to meet the exigency created
by the Second World War. Rule 81-A gave powers to the Government to
intervene in industrial disputes and was intended to provide speedy remedies
for industrial disputes by referring them compulsorily to conciliation or B
adjudication by making the awards legally binding on the parties and by
prohibiting strike or lock-outs during the pendency of the conciliation or
adjudication proceedings. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act,
1945 was enacted which made provision for framing and certifying of standing
orders covering various aspects of service conditions in the industry. The
Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly C
on 8.10.1945 which embodied the essential provisions of Rule 81-. A of the
Defence of India Rules and also certain provisions of Trade Disputes Act,
1929 concerning industrial disputes. The Bill was passed by the Assembly
in March 1947 and became tht: law w.e.f. 1.4.1947. The present Act was
enacted the said objects and provided machinery and forum for the investigation
of industrial disputes, their settlement for purpose analogous and incidental D
thereto. The emergence of the concept of welfare State implies an end to
exploitation of workmen and as a corollary to that collective bargaining came
into its own. The Legislature had intended to protect workmen against
victimisation and exploitation by the employer and to ensure termination of
industrial disputes in a peaceful manner. E
2.3. The object of the Act, therefore, is to give succour to weaker
sections of the society which is a pre-requisite for a welfare Sate. To ensure
industrial peace and pre-empt industrial tension, the Act further aims at
enhancing the industrial production which is acknowledged to be the life-
blood of a developing society. The Act provides a machinery for investigation F
and settlement of industrial disputes ignoring the legal technicalities with
a view to avoid delays, by specially authorised courts which are not supposed
to deny and relief on account of the procedural wrangles. The Act contemplates
realistic and effective negotiations, conciliation and adjudication as per the
need of the society keeping in view the fast changing social norms of the G
developing country like India.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2157of1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.98 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in L.P.A. No. 798of1991. H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A B.L. Yadav, P.K. Chakravarty and K. Mishra for the Appellant.

R.K. Talwar (D.M. Sinha) for Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Leave granted.
B "
__...,,...,..
The services of the appellant-workman were terminated by the
respondent-management allegedly without compliance of the mandatory

c
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'). The dispute regarding his termination of services was referred to the
Labour Court by the appropriate government on 19 .3 .1982. The management
justified their action on the ground that as the workman, being a salesman,
-
had embezzled thousands of rupees, the termination of his services was
justified. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and adjudicate the
...
reference was also disputed. However, after the evidence of the parties, the
labour court vi de its award dated I G.4.1986 directed reinstatement of the
D workman with full back wages from 8.12.1981. it may be worth noticing that
the issue regarding jurisdiction of the labour court to entertain the reference
was not pressed by the management. Not satisfied with the award of the
labour court, the management filed a writ petition in the High Court praying
for quashing the award of the labour court mainly on the ground of the
'E workman having approached the court for the grant of the relief after a
prolonged delay. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the
workman was not entitled to any relief as he was allegedly shown to have
slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted wjth the management at a
belated stage when it might have been difficult for the employer to prove the

F
guilt of the workman. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld
by the Division Bench vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.

Supporting the impugned judgment, 'the learned counsel appearing for
-
the management-respondent has contended that the principle incorporated
under Article 137 of the Limitation Act though not specifically made applicable
yet would be deemed to be applicable in a case under the Act for the purpose
G
of making a reference in terms of Section IO thereof. In support of his

--
/
contentions, he has referred to different judgments under various enactments. '
The learned counsel appearing for the workman has, however, submitted that
the principles incorporated under article 13 7 of the Limitation Act cannot be
held to be applicable under the Act for t'1e purposes of making a reference
H of the dispute to the labour court and that the reliance of the learned counsel
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY [SETHI, J.] 511
on different judgments was misconceived for reasons of not taking note of A
the special provision of the Act admittedly is a social welfare legislation
intended to protect the interests of the workmen employed in various industries.

It is not in dispute that the services of the workman were terminated on
16.7.1974 and he had issu~d the notice of demand only on 8.12.1981. It is also B
not disputed that no plea regarding delay appears to have been taken by the
management before the labour court, it is also acknowledged that Article 137
of the Limitation Act has not been specifically made applicable to the
proceedings under the Act seeking reference of industrial disputes to the
labour court. This Court, in no case, has so far held that either Article 137
of the Limitation Act or the principle incorporated therein is applicable to the C
proceedings under the Act.

Before appreciating the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties,
it has to be noticed as to under what circumstances the act was enacted and
what was the objectives sought to be achieved by its legislation. If cannot
be disputed that the act was brought on the statute book with the object to D
ensure social justice to both the employers and employees and advance the
progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial
relationship between the parties. It is a piece of legislation providing and
regulating the service conditions of the workers. The object of the Act is to
improve the service conditions of industrial labour so as to provide for them E
the ordinary amenities of life and by the process, to bring about industrial
peace which would in its tum accelerate productive activity of the country
resulting in its prosperity. The prosperity of the country in its tum, helps to
improve the conditions of labour Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. v. The Workman,
AIR (1967) SC 948. The Act is intended not only to make provision for
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes but also to serve industrial F
peace so that it may result in more production and improve the national
economy. In the present sociopolitical economic system, it is intended to
achieve co-operation between the capital and Jabour which has been deemed
to be essential for maintenance of increased production and industrial peace.
The Act provides to ensure fair terms to workman and to prevent disputes G
between the employer and the employees so that the large interests of the

_, public may not suffer. The provisions of the Act have to be interpreted in a
manner which advances the object of the Legislature contemplated in the
statement of objects and reasons. While interpreting different provisions of
the Act, attempt should be made to avoid industrial un-rest, secure industrial
peace and to provide machinery to secure the end. Conciliation is most H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 999] 2 S.C.R.

A important and desirable way to secure that end. In dealing with industrial
disputes, the courts have always, emphasized doctrine of social justice, which
is founded on basic ideal of socio-economic equality as enshrined in the .
Preamble of our Constitution. While construing the provisions of the Act, the
Courts have to give them a construction which should help in achieving the
B object of the Act.

The- history of the legislation with respect to the industrial disputes
-
would show that for the first time in the year I 920 the Trade Disputes Act
was enacted which provided for Courts of Inquiry and Conciliation Boards
and forbade strikes in public utility service without a statutory notice in
C writing. The Act did not make provision for any machinery for setting of
industrial disputes. The said Act was repealed and replaced by the trade
Disputes Act, 1962 which started the state intervention in the settlement of
industrial disputes and armed the Government with the power which could be
used whenever considered fit to intervene in industrial disputes. This Act
was amended in the year 1938 authorising the Central and Provincial
D Governments to appoint conciliation officers for mediating in or promoting the
Settlement of industrial disputes. Shortly thereafter the Government of India
promulgated the Defence oflndia Rules to meet the exigency created by the
Second World War. Rule 81-A gave powers to the Government to intervene
in industrial disputes and was intended to provide speedy remedies for
E industrial disputes by referring them co·mpulsorily to conciliation or adjudication
by making the awarcis legally binding on the parties and by prohibiting
strikes or lock-outs uuring the pendency of the conciliation or adjudication
proceedings. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945 was enacted
which made provision for framing and certifying of standing orders covering
various aspects of service conditions in the industry. The Industrial Disputes
F . Bill was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly on 8.10.1945 which
embodied the essential principles of Rule 81-A of the Defence of India Rules
and also certain provisions of Trade Disputes Act, 1929 concerning industrial
disputes. The Bill was passed by the Assembly in March 1947 and became
the law w.e.f. 1.4.1947. The present Act was enacted with the objects as
G referred to hereinabove and provided machinery and forum for the investigation
of industrial disputes, their settlement for purposes of analogous and incidental
thereto. The emergence of the concept of welfare state implies an end to
exploitation of workman and as a corollary to that collective bargaining came
-
into its own. The Legislature had intended to protect workmen against
victimisation and exploitation by the employer and to ensure termination of
H industrial disputes in peaceful manner.
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY [SETHI, J.] 513
The object of the Act, therefore, is to give succour to weaker sections A
of the society which is a pre-requisite for a welfare State. To ensure industrial
peace and pre-empt industrial tension, the Act further aims at enhancing the
industrial production which is acknowledged to be life-blood of a developing
society. The Act provides a machinery for investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes ignoring the legal techinicalities with a view to avoid B
delays, by specially authorised courts which are not supposed to deny the
relief on account of the procedural wrangles. The Act contemplates realistic
and effective negotiations, conciliation and adjudication as per the need of
the society keeping in view the fast changing social norms of the developing
country like India. It appears to us that the High Court has adopted a casual
approach in deciding the matter apparently ignoring the purpose, aim and C
,object of the Act.
1
/ This Court in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Ors., [1964] 3
! SCR 709 held that the provisions of Article 181 (now Article 137) of the
' Limitation Act apply only to applications which were made under the Code
of Civil Procedure and its extension to applications under Section 33-C(2) of D
the Act was,not~stified. This position was further reiterated and explained
by this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubili and Ors., [ 1970] l SCR 51 :-
"It appears to us that the view expressed by this Court in those cases
must be held to be applicable, even when considering the scope and E
applicability of Article 137 in the new Limitation Act of 1963. The
language of Article 137 is only slightly different from that of the earlier ;
Article 181 inasmuch as, when prescribing the three years' period of
limitation, the first column giving the description of the application
reads as "any other application for which no period of limitation is
provided elsewhere in this division." In fact, the addition of the word F
"other" between the words "any" and "application" would indicate
that the legislature wanted to make it clear that the principle of
·,
interpretation of Article 181 on the basis of eiusdem generis should
be applied when interpreting the new Article 137. This word "other"
implies a reference to earlier articles, and, consequently, in interpreting G
this article, regard must be had to the provisions contained in all the

.... - earlier articles. The other articles in the third division to the schedule
refer to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, with the
exception of applications under the Arbitration Act and also in two
cases applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure. the effect of
introduction in the third division of the schedule of reference to H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A applications under the Arbitration Act in the old Limitation Act has
already been considered by this Court in the case of Sha Mulchand
& Co. Ltd., [1953] SCR 709 =AIR (1953) SC 98 (supra). We think that,
on the same principle, it must be held that even the further alteration
~
made in the articles contained in the third division of the schedule to
the new Limitation Act containing references to applications under
B the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be held to have materially
altered the scope of the residuary. Article 137 which deals with other
applications. It is not possible to hold that the intention of the
Legislature was to drastically alter the scope of this article so as to
include within it all applications, irrespective of the fact whether they
c had any reference to the Code of Civil Procedure.

This Point, in our opinion, may be looked at from another angle
also. When this Court earlier held that all the articles in the third
division to the schedule, including Article 181 of the Limitation Act
of 1908 governed applications under the Code of Civil Procedure only,
D it clearly implied that the applications must be presented to a Court
governed by the Code of Civil procedure. Even the applications under
the Arbitration Act that were included within the third division by
amendment of Articles 158 and 178 were to be presented to Courts
whose proceedings were governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. At
best the further amendment now made enlarges the scope of the third
E
division of the schedule so as also to include some applications
presented to courts governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. One
factor at least remains constant and that is that the applications must
be to courts to be governed by the Articles in this division. The
scope of the various articles in "this division cannot be held to have
F been so enlarged as to include within them applications to bodies
other than Courts, such as a quasi-judicial tribunal, or even an executive
authority. An industrial tribunal or a Labour Court dealing with
applications or references under the Act are not courts an they are
in no way governed either by the Code of Civil Procedure or the code
of Criminal Procedure. We cannot, therefore, accept the submission
G made that this article will apply even to applications made to an

-
Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court. The alterations made in the
Article and in the new Act cannot, in our opinion, justify the
interpretation that even applications presented to bodies, other than
courts, are now to be governed for purposes of limitation by Art.
H 137."
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY [SETHI, J.] 515

In Sakura v. Tanaji AIR., (1985) SC 1279 it was held that the provisions A
of the Limitation Act applied only to proceedings in courts and not to appeals
. or applications before the bodies other than courts such as quasi-judicial
tribunal or executive authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or
authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on courts
under the Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure. The view taken by this Court B
in case Municipal Council Athani (supra) and Nityanand M Joshi v. LIC of
India, [1970] 1 SCR 396 was reiterated with approval.

In Jai Bhagwan v. Management of the Ambala Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd. And Anr. AIR, (1984) SC 286 this Court declined to set aside the
order of reinstatement of the workman who was shown to have approached C
the court after a prolonged delay. However, in the circumstances of the case,
the court directed the workman to be reinstated in service with continuity
from the date on which his services were terminated but having regard to the
fact that he had raised the industrial dispute after considerable delay without
doing anything in the meanwhile, he was not awarded the back wages. The
grant of half back wages from the date of termination of service until the date D
of order and full back wages from that date till his reinstatement was found
in the circumstances to meet the ends of justice. In H.M T. Ltd. v. Labour
Court, Ernakulam and Ors., (1994) LLR 720 SC where there was a delay of
14 years in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, this Court found that
instead of full back wages, the grand of 60 percent of the back wages upon E
the reinstatement of the workman would meet the ends of justice.

It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule
to Lmitation 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 F
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 in
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 G
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. Reliance of
the learned counsel for the respondent-management on the full bench
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander Morya v.
State of Haryana, (1999) 1 SCT 141 is also of no help to him. fn that case H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.
I
A the High Court nowhere held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation
Act were applicable in the proceedings under the Act. The Court specifically
held "neither any limitation has been provided nor any guidelines to determine
as to what shall be the period of limitation in such cases." However, it went
on further to say that "reasonable time in the cases of labour for demand of
B reference or dispute_ by appropriate government to labour tribunals will be
five years after which the government can refuse to make a reference on the
ground of delay and latches if there is no explanation to the delay." We are
of the opinion that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was not justified in
prescribing the limitation for getting the reference made ~r an application
under Section 37-C of the Act to be adjudicated. It is not the function of the
C court to prescribe the limitation where the Legislature in its wisdom had
though if fit not to prescribe any period. The courts admittedly interpret law
and do not make laws. Personal views of the Judges presiding the court
cannot be stretched to authorise them to interpret law in such a manner whic~
would amount to legislation intentionally left over by the Legislature. The
judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
D completely ignored the object of the Act and various pronouncements of this
Court as noted hereinabove and thus is not a good law on the point of the
applicability of the period of limitation for the purposes of invoking the
jurisdiction of the courts/boards and tribunal under the Act.

E In the instant case, the respondent-management is not shown to have
taken any plea regarding delay as is evident from the issues framed by the
labour court. The only plea raised in defence was that the labour court had
not jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the termination of the services
of the workman was justified. Had this plea been raised, the workman would
have been in a position to show the circumstances preventing him in
F approaching the Court at an earlier stage or 1;wen to satisfy the court that
such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by: the
government. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, were not justified
in holding that the workman had not given any explanation as to why the
demand notice had been issued after a long period. The findings of facts
G returned by High Court in writ proceedings, even without pleadings were,
therefore, unjustified. The high Court was also not justified in holding that
the courts were bound to render an even handed justice by keeping bal~ce
between the two different parties. Such an approach totally ignores the ~ims
and object and the social object sought to be achieved by the Act. Even a~er
noticing that "It is true that a fight between the workman and the management
H is not a just fight between equals," the court was not justified to make them
AJAIB SINGH v.S.C.M.C.P. SERVICE SOCIETY [SETHI, J.] 517
equals while returning the findings, which if allowed to prevail, would result A
in frustration· of the purpose of the. enactment. The workman appears to be
justified in complaining that in the absence of any plea on behalf of the
management and any evidence, regarding delay, he could not be deprived of
the benefits under the Act merely on technicalities of law. The High Court
appears to have substituted its opinion for the opinion of the labour court B
which was not pennissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.

We are, however, of the opinion that on account of the admitted delay,
the labour court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying
the appellant-workman some part of the back wages. In the circumstances, the C
appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside by upholding the award
of the labour court with modification that upon his reinstatement the appellant
would be entitled to continuity of service, but back wages to the extent of
60 per cent with effect from 8.12.1981 when he raised the demand for Justice
till the date of award of the labour court i.e 16.4.1986 and full back wages
thereafter till his reinstatement would be payable to him. The appellant is also D
held entitled to the costs of litigation assessed at Rs. 5.000 to be paid by the
respondent-management.

R.K.S. Appeal allowed.