RAJA RAM MAIZE PRODUCTS versus INDUSTRIAL COURT OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 21-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
RAJA RAM MAIZE PRODUCTS 
A 
~ 
v. 
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRABABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
s 
j. 
Labour Laws : 
M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960: Section 62. 
Limitation-Cause of action-Arising of-Labour Cou11 directed work-
c 
men not to continue Strike and to resume their duties-But employer did not 
allow the workmen lo do so-Application filed beyond two years from date of 
award for a direction that the workmen be allowed to resume their duties-
Application allowed-Industrial Cou11 dismissed the application as barred by 
limitation-High Cou11 set aside Industrial Cou11's order-Correctness of-
D 
Held : Cause of action is complete when workmen not allowed to resume 
work-Question of demanding work even on refusal does not stand to reason-
Hence, application barred by limitation-17zerefore, High Court erred in set-
ting aside Industripl Cou11's order. 
-+ 
The Labour Court directed the respondents-workmen not to con-
E 
tinue strike and to resume their duties. But the appellant-employer did not 
allow the workmen to resume their duties. However, the respondents con-
tinued demanding work. 
Thereafter, the respondents filed applications before the Labour 
F 
Court for a direction to allow the respondents to resume their duties. The 
~ -t 
appellant contended that the cause of action arose on the date of award by 
the Labour Court and the applications filed beyond the period of two 
years were barred hy limitation under Section 62 of the M.P. Industrial 
Relations Act, 1960. 
G 
The Labour Court held that the respondents were making efforts to 
come back for duty and thus there was a recurring cause of action and, 
). 
therefore, the applications were within the period oflimitation. The Indus-
trial Court set aside the Labour Court's award. But the High Court 
allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. Hence this appeal. 
H 
545 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Even taking that two years period from the date of the 
_;. 
dispute either taking the date on which when the respondents were refused 
work when they made a demand that they should be allowed to do work or 
when they made a demand after the order made by the Labour Court on 
B 
an interim application directing them to resume work or calling off the 
strike, the applications tiled are beyond the period of limitation prescribed 
II
under Section 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. (551-A-B] 
,.._ 
2. When the workers demanded that they should be allowed to 
c 
resume work and they were not allowed to resume work, the cause of 
action was complete. In such a case the workers going on demanding each 
day to resume work would not arise at all. The question of demanding to 
allow to do work even on refusal does not stand to reason. [551-C-D] 
Balakris/ma Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj 
y 
D 
Sansthan, AIR (1959) SC 798, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 89-90 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.97 and 7.11,.97 of the Madhya 
E 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 339/97 and Misc. Civil Case No. 912 of 
... 
1997. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 92-93/99, 100-101/99, 94-99/99, 91/99, SLP (C) 
Nos. 14115/2000 and 14l16/2000. 
F 
P.P. Rao, ''Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Tapas Ray, Yogeshwar Prasad, Sushi! 
Kumar Jain, M.L. Bhachawat, AP. Dharnija, Pradeep Aggarwal, Prakash 
t· 
Shrivastava, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Ms. Rasbmi Jain and T. Raja for the 
appearing parties. 
G 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Three applications under Section 31(3) read 
with Sections 34 and 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 
1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] were filed either on 12.4.1988 or 
.,( 
21.6.1988 by the workers as per the list enclosed to the applications. It is 
H 
pleaded therein that the appellant is not allowing them to do their job and 
RAJA RAM MAIZE PRODUCTS'· INDUSTRIAL COURf OF M.P. [RAlENDRA BABU. I.] 547 
the same should be held to be illegal, mala fide and unjustified aud direct 
A 
... 
the appellant to allow them to do their job forthwith and pay their wages for 
the period they were not allowed to do their duty. In the applications, it was 
alleged that on 22.8.1986 the appellant had filed a case [No.35/MPIR/1986] 
before the Labour Court, Durg praying that the strike resorted to by the 
workers with effect from 12.2.1986 may be held to be illegal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.