NITYANANDA M. JOSHI & ORS. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 25-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NITYANANDA M. JOSHI & ORS. 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS • 
..,,. 251 11169 
[S. M. S!Klll, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, IJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Ac: (14 of 1947), s. 33C(2)-App/icatioru for 
computing btne/il of holidays in terms of monty-MainJainabi/ily. 
Indlan,Limitalion Act (36 of 1963), Ari. 131-Applications to Lobour 
Court-If covered by Article. 
The appellanll (employees 
of the 
respondent) 
filed 
applications 
C 
apimt the respondent, under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispullet Act, 
l!M7, for computlna in tenns of money, the benefit of. holidays, and for 
recoverina the amount. 'The Labour 
Court dismissed the applications 
inlofar u the claim was for a period beyond three yean, on the ground 
that the applications were barred under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 
1963. 
In appeal to this Court, the reopondent supported the order of dis-
mioul also on the ground that the applications were 
not maintainable 
Wider s. 33C(2) because, the sub .. ection does not indicate tbe mode in 
which the question as to the amount at which the benefit should be com-
puted, may be decided. 
HELD: (I) The applications fell squarely within s. 33C(2) of the 
lndu.mial Disputes Act. Under the sub-section,. the rule-making authority 
bu to make a suitable provision for indicating the mode in which the 
money-value of. the benefit should be computed. 
Such 
a provision 
Is 
made in r. 62(2) of the Industrial Displlles (Central) llules, 1957, which 
pr11t:ribes the form for 
the application for the determination 
of the 
amount. 
[398E-HJ 
(2) The scheme of the Indian 
Limitation Act, 1963 is that it ooly 
dea1a with applications to ordinary courts and. u the Labour Court is not 
lllCh a courr, it erred in holding that the applications 
were barred by 
Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. 
[397G·H; 398A-B] 
[The ground of decision in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Tiu 
Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Hubli, (1970] l S.C.R. SI that applicationa 
to courts under provisions of law other than thooe C1f the Civil Proeedure 
Code are not included within Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, doubted]. 
[398B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUll!SDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 301 to 
319 and 1105 Of 1969. 
Appeals by special leave from the order dated April 16, 1968 
of the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay in Applications 
Nos. LCB-28 of 1965 etc. 
Madan Mohan, for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.. 
• 
NITYANANDA V. L.I.C. (Sikri, /.) 
397 
A 
C. K. Daphtary, O. P. Malhotra and K. L. Hathi, for respon-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
dents Nos. l and 2 (in all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. 
These appeals by special leave are directed against . 
the order ot the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay, 
holding that the applications filed by the appellants against the 
Life Insurance Corporation of India lljllder s. 33C(2) of the IndUS- . 
trial Disputes Act, 1947, were barred under art. 137 of the Limi-
tation Act, 1963, insofar as the claim was for period beyond three 
years. 
In holding this the Labour Court followed the decision of 
the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in The Manager M/s. 
P. K. Porwal v. The Labour Court('). 
The Bombay High Court 
held that applications filed under s. 3 3C ( 2) of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act prior to its ameindment by Central Act :XXXVI of 1964 
were governed by the period o.f limitation laid down in art. 13 7 
of the Limitation Act; 1963, and this article applied to applications 
under Jaws other than thos.e contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 
1908. 
Thfa Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presid-
ing Officer, Labour Court, Hubli(') has dissented from the deci· 
sion of the Bombay High Court and has held that art. 137 of the 
Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to applications under 
s. 3 3C ( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
This Court gave two 
reasons for coming to this conclusion. 
The first ground was that 
in spite of the changes. made in the Indian Limitati~ Act, 1963, 
no drastic change was intended in the scope of ·art. 13 7 so as to 
include withiin it all applications irrespective of the fact whether 
they had any reference to the Code ot Civil Procedure or not. 
This Court held that in spite of the chainges the interpretation of 
art. 181 of the Limitation Act. 1908, by this Court in Bombay 
Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Others(") would apply to art. 
137 of the Limitatiqn Act, 1963. The secon

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.