Table of Contents
Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1351
Background and Facts
The respondent management terminated Ajaib Singh’s employment, which it was alleged to have done in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Labor Court ordered for his reinstatement. But this relief was not granted by the High Court and subsequent division bench due to long delay in institution of proceedings.
Key Legal Issue
The core issue in dispute was whether or not the Limitation Act,1963 would be applicable to proceeding under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Court’s Observations and Decision
According to Supreme Court, “it is not for court to prescribe limitation period where legislature has not done so”. It said that interpretation must recognize that judge as a person cannot do what a legislator can. With reference to Section 137 of Limitation Act 1963, court concluded that same does not apply in respect of proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently no relief can be refused to a workman merely because there is delay.
Implications and Broader Context
It has significant implications on labor law covering industrial disputes and termination of employment among others. In other words this means that it interprets laws as they are without assuming legislative roles thus demonstrating their role as custodians of legal interpretation within industrial relations framework especially when employees’ rights are at stake. Further, this ruling highlights that labor legislation ensures fairness such that procedural limitations should not unduly affect workers’ rights
