Limitation under Article 137 does not apply to Labour Court claims under section 33C(2) for computation of holiday benefits.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held to apply only to applications made to courts, so it did not govern applications before a Labour Court under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the limitation objection therefore failed. Section 33C(1) was treated as covering sums already due under a settlement, award, or Chapter VA, while section 33C(2) was held to cover computation in money of an existing workman's entitlement. Because the employees sought computation and recovery of holiday benefits without any prior award or settlement quantifying that benefit, the claim was properly maintainable under section 33C(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to applications under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. (ii) Whether the employees' claim for computation and recovery of holiday benefits was maintainable under section 33C(2) rather than section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to applications under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court.

Analysis: Article 137 was held to contemplate applications to courts. The scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963, including the provisions dealing with expiry on a holiday and condonation of delay, was treated as showing that the Act is directed to applications made to courts. On that basis, the Labour Court was regarded as not being a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: Article 137 did not apply to the applications before the Labour Court, and the finding of limitation was wrong.

Issue (ii): Whether the employees' claim for computation and recovery of holiday benefits was maintainable under section 33C(2) rather than section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 33C(1) was treated as covering money due under a settlement, award, or Chapter VA, while section 33C(2) was treated as covering a workman's entitlement to money or a benefit capable of being computed in money. The claim was for computing in money the benefit of holidays and recovering the amount, and there was no prior award or settlement computing that benefit. Rule 62(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 supported the procedure for such applications in Form K-3.

Conclusion: The applications were properly filed under section 33C(2), and the objection based on section 33C(1) failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the limitation ruling was set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to proceed according to law on the employees' claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs only applications to courts, and a claim for a monetary computation of an existing benefit falls within section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

---