Industrial Disputes Act | Application Not Needed For Condonation U/S 33C(1) If 'Sufficient Cause' Is Shown In Main Petition: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a workman is not required to file a separate delay condonation application under Section 33 C (1) [Recovery of money due from an employer] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde observed that 'sufficient cause' for delay if pleaded within the application for recovery of arrears under Section 33C (1), that would be enough to condone the delay.“…merely because a separate application for condonation of delay-which is not mandated under the Act of 1947 is not filed, cannot be a ground to reject the claims on the ground of delay. Such an objection pertains to form rather than substance. It is well settled that, in case of conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail, unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form as well….”, the court held.Accordingly, the court rejected the writ filed by the Bosch Company management challenging the delay condoning orders passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in the matters of erstwhile employees and their heirs.The ex-employees and their legal heirs, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, filed 48 distinct applications for release of pension arrears based on settlements reached between the years of 1983-1989.Before the High Court, the company management prayed for quashing the applications since they suffer from 6-26 years of delay whereas the statutory limitation prescribed is one year. Moreover, the applications do not contain separate delay condonation applications. Hence, the Deputy Labour Commissioner was not required to hear the plea since these applications are time barred, submitted the employer management. The proviso to Section 33C(1) is given below:“…. Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period”."…The proviso to Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 does not contemplate a separate application for condonation of delay. If the main application itself contains the reasons for the delay, and if the authority is satisfied with the reasons assigned, then the authority can certainly condone the delay”, the court added after referring to Section 33C(1).In the issue at hand, the saving cum pension scheme wherein a portion of the workers' salary was periodically deducted whereas the company paid a certain sum to the corpus, was later linked to the scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India. The workers argued that the money payable under the scheme has not yet been fully paid by the employer.The court also took note of the workers' making representations to their employer for disbursement of the sum allegedly owed to them. The letters and applications filed by the workers, as evident from the documents before the labour authority, ranges from the years of 1995-2011, the court observed.“The scheme provides for contribution by both the employer and employee for the pension fund, and the contribution by the employee is also at the hands of the employer by way of deduction of certain amount from the salary/wages payable. The contribution is required to be made to a bank account in State Bank of India, and payment of pension is also to the account of the pensioners, and in such situation, if there is a dispute as to the payment, the Court is of the view that, the matter requires consideration on merits by condoning the delay if valid reasons are assigned…”, the court concluded.Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ filed by company management and allowed the authority under Industrial Disputes Act to proceed with the adjudication of workers' claims on merits.Case Title: Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & OrsCase No: Writ Petition No. 6976 Of 2019Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

Industrial Disputes Act | Application Not Needed For Condonation U/S 33C(1) If 'Sufficient Cause' Is Shown In Main Petition: Karnataka HC

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Industrial Disputes Act | Application Not Needed For Condonation U/S 33C(1) If 'Sufficient Cause' Is Shown In Main Petition: Karnataka HC

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers