S. Prakasha S/O. S.M. Siddappa, Vs. the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka and the Management of Zenith Textiles Rep. by Its Mill Manager - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- limitation act (36 of 1963)article 65 :[h.g. ramesh,j] suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title - period of limitation - time from which period begins to run held, article 65 would show that there is no limitation for institution of a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, if the defendants possession is not adverse to the plaintiff; if the possession is adverse, the period of limitation is twelve years and limitation starts from the time when the defendants possession starts from the time when the defendants possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff and not from the date of dispossession of the plaintiff as in article 64. further, in a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, the claim of the true owner could be defeated only if the person in possession pleads and proves that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. on facts held, the claim for possession of the plaint b schedule property was based on title. it is not the case of the defendant that his possession was adverse to the plaintiff. hence, the claim was not barred by time as there is no period of limitation for such a claim. .....disputes act 1947, is no more res integra. the apex court in the case of remington rand of india ltd. v. thiru r. jambulingam : air 1974 sc 1915 has observed thus:6. xxx we may, however, observe that while even an order of approval is passed under section 33(2) of the id. act, an industrial dispute can be raised by either party and an appropriate reference can be later made by the government under section 10 of the id. act. xxx.yet again the apex court in the case of cholan roadways ltd. v. g. thirugnanasambandam : (2005) 3 scc 241 has observed thus:13. it in neither in doubt nor in dispute that the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act it a limited one. the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal under section 33(2)(b) cannot be equated with that of section 10 of the industrial disputes act. xxx3. in the light of the aforesaid observations of law, the state government was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for having their industrial disputes referred to the appropriate court for adjudication under the act.the endorsement impugned stands quashed. writ petitions is ordered accordingly. the state.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. The petitioners, employees of the second respondent company when chargesheeted for acts of misconduct, participated in the enquiry, whence, this enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges proved loading to the order dt. 26.7.2003 of the disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioners from service. Since an industrial dispute raised by the association was pending adjudication before the Indusrial Tribunal, Mysore, the second respondent - employer filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short 'the Act') for approval of the dismissal by the Tribunal. At the same time, the association espousing the case of the petitioners approached the Labour Conciliation Authority to refer the dispute for adjudication, which was declined by the first respondent. The application filed by the employer invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, was allowed by the Tribunal and approval was granted by order dt. 17.1.2008. The petitioners through their union approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation and reference of the Industrial Dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The first respondent placing reliance upon the earlier order dt 17.11.2004, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication by endorsement dt. 24.3.2008, Annexure - 'A'. Hence this Writ Petition.

2. the answer to the question as to whether the industrial dispute can be raised by either party on an appropriate reference made by the State Government under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, though an order of approval is passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Thiru R. Jambulingam : AIR 1974 SC 1915 has observed thus:

6. xxx We may, however, observe that while even an order of approval is passed under Section 33(2) of the ID. Act, an industrial dispute can be raised by either party and an appropriate reference can be later made by the Government under Section 10 of the ID. Act. xxx.

Yet again the Apex Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam : (2005) 3 SCC 241 has observed thus:

13. It in neither in doubt nor in dispute that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act it a limited one. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be equated with that of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. xxx

3. In the light of the aforesaid observations of law, the State Government was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for having their Industrial disputes referred to the appropriate Court for adjudication under the Act.

The endorsement impugned stands quashed. Writ Petitions is ordered accordingly. The State Government is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra.