RAIPUR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. versus OKHABHAI DEVRAJBHAI PATNI

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 26-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
lE 
F 
H 
818 
RAIPUR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. 
v. 
OKHABHAI DEVRAJBHAI PATNI 
November 26, 1975 
(P. N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND 
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, ss. 42( 4), 78(1) (A) (a)(i) and 
79(1) and (3) and r. 53 of rhe Rules made thereunder-Scope of-Power to 
extend period after expiry of the initial period-"Mutua//y fixed", meaning 
of. 
A combined reading of ss. 42(4), 78(1)(A)(a)(i), 79(1) and (3) of the 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and r. 53 of the Rules made under the 
Act, sh.ows that an application under s. 79( 1) to the Labour Court, in respect 
of a dispute falling und.er s. 78(1)(A)(a)(i) must be made within 3 months 
of the arising of the dispute; and that the dispute would be deemed to have 
arisen if, within a period of 15 days from the receipt of a letter of approach 
under s. 42(4) by the employer, o.r within such further period as may 
be 
mutually fixed by the employer and the employee, no agreement is arrived at in 
Tespect of the change desired by the employee. 
In the present case, the letter of' approach under s. 42(4) claiming that his 
age was only 56 years and so he should not be retired, was sent bY the employ-ee 
(respondent) to the etnployer (appellant) on February 13, 1973. Since there 
was no response, the respondent requested the Labour Commissioner. on March 
17, 1973, to intervene. The Labour Officer of the appellant appeared before 
the Labour Commissioner and took adjournment in order to compromise the 
dispute. As no compromise was arrived at, the respondent filed his application 
under s. 78(1)(A)(a)(i) read :withs. 79.(1) before the Labour Court on June 
7, 1973. The Labour Court and on appeal,.the Industrial Court, held, that the 
period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the letter of approach expired 
on February 28, 1973; that the dispute between the parties should be deemed to 
have arisen at the latest on March l, 1973; that the application under s. 79(1) 
to the Labour Court sliould have been filed within 3 months of that date, that 
is, on or before June 1, 1973; and that, therefore, the application filed on June 
7, 1973, was barred under s. 79(3)(a). The High Court, however. took the 
view that by reason of the Labour Officer of the appellant asking for adjournment 
for compromising the matter on or after March 17, 1973, there was an ex-
tension of the period to some date beyond March 17, 1973 by mutual agree-
ment between the parties, and that therefore. the application filed on June 7, 
1973, was within 3 months of the arising of the dispute. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that (1) there was no valid 
extension of the .period for settlemept as such extension should have been fixed 
before the expiry of the initial period of 15 days, and (2) no period was 
111utua 1ly fixed between the parties. 
Allowing the appeal on the second ground, 
HELD: (1) The further period f'or arriving at a settlement under r. 53(2) 
can be mutually fixed between the parties even after the expiration of the initial 
period of 15 days; and in such a case, the dispute would be deemed to have 
arisen only on the expiration of the extended period if within that time no 
settlement is arrived at. 
[824·G] 
(a) There is nothing in the rule which provides that the further period 
should be fixed before the expiration of the initial period. 
The words in the 
rule "within 15 days of the receipt of the application by the employer or with-
in ;uch further period as may be mutually fixed between the employer and 
the employee" are suff!cie!'l!y wide to. c.oyer a s!tuation where the further period 
jq fixed after the exp1rat10n of the m1bal penod. [824 B.C.]. 
-"! -
"1\ 
... 
) 
RAIPUR JVVNUFACTURING co. v. OKHABHAI (Bhagwati, !.) 819 
(h) T)1e object of the rule is that; as far as possible, the employer and the 
.employee should arrive at an agreement by negotiation in respect _of the cha!1ge 
-desired by the employee and it is, only where such an agreement is n?t poss1b\e 
,that the employee should approach the Labour Court for ad1ud1ca11on. 
It 1s 
possible that even after the expiry of the initial period, the parties may arrive 
.at a settlement and such settlement should not be discouraged by compelling the 
·employee to apply to the Labour Court within 3 months of the expiration of 
the initial period of 15 day~. [824 D-F] 
[Obiter : The further period cannot, however, be fixed after 3 months have 
·elap

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