Karnataka High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Anant Ramanath Hegde, J., dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the Deputy Labour Commissioner’s decision to condone delay in entertaining pension claims cannot be termed perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that 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.
Background
The case arose from the introduction of a saving-cum-pension scheme by the petitioner Company via a settlement on 8 October 1983, entered between the petitioner and the respondents, who are former employees of the petitioner. The said scheme required both the petitioner and employees to make certain contribution to the pension fund. The employees’ contribution was through the deduction of a certain amount, from the employee’s salary by the employer. The settlement was provided for minimum of 10 years’ tenure. Furthermore, there was one more settlement made on 14 August 1989, which had taken note of earlier pension scheme and provided continuity. The scheme was later modified and linked to the scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The respondents aggrieved by the claim of the pension as payable under the scheme not yet settled, after a long period of time. Then it was raised to the Deputy Labour Commissioner of Bangalore, the Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947) who condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act of 1947 by the order dated 3 December 2018.
The petitioner Company assailed the order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner of Bangalore. The petitioner contended that the oldest claim is 26 years old and latest claim is 6 years old, such claim is belated or time-barred.
Issues
-
Whether separate application for condonation of delay is necessary to prosecute the claim on Section 33-C(1), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
-
Whether the applicants before the Deputy Labour Commissioner have made out a case for condoning the delay in making a claim under Section 33-C(1), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Case Analysis
The Court, after due perusal of Section 33-C(1), Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, held that a plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the Authority under the Act of 1947 is empowered to entertain an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act, 1947, filed beyond one year from the date on which the money became due, provided sufficient cause is shown.
The Court held that 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. However, it is equally necessary that a claimant seeking to invoke the proviso to Section 33-C(1) of the Act, 1947 must assign valid and sufficient reasons for the delay.
The Court emphasised that the claim for pension, pursuant to a settlement if denied on the technical plea and limitation, would result in injustice to the workmen and accordingly, condoned the delay considering the valid reasons assigned and evidence is led in support of their claims.
Decision
The Court, hence, dismissed the writ petition and directed the Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to proceed to consider the claim on its merits. It also clarified that the Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, except on the issue of delay.
[Management of Bosch Ltd. v. Andrew C. Shekaran K.P., WP No. 6976 of 2019, decided 2-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: K Kasturi, Subha Ananthi K, Advocate
For the Respondent: Suresh S Lokre, Shravan S Lokre, Indradhanush Chavan, N Dhanasegaran, K S Bheemaiah, Jai M Patil, M Rajakumar, Advocate
