Limitation does not bar industrial dispute references, but delay may justify reducing back wages and moulding relief.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a reference or proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because such proceedings are governed by the special welfare scheme of that Act and cannot be defeated by a judicially created limitation period. Delay in raising the dispute is therefore not, by itself, a ground to deny relief; if delay is relied on, it must be established on the facts and prejudice cannot be presumed. However, admitted delay may justify moulding the remedy. The workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but the back wages were restricted for the delayed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to deny relief on the ground of delay. (ii) Whether, despite delay in raising the demand, the relief of reinstatement should be modified by reducing back wages.

Issue (i): Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to deny relief on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation intended to secure industrial peace, protect workmen, and provide an effective machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes without being defeated by technical objections. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications before courts and not to proceedings before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal acting under the special scheme of the Act. A reference cannot be rejected merely because it was made after delay; if delay is pleaded, it must be proved as a matter of fact and prejudice cannot be presumed. The Court also disapproved the prescription of any judicially created limitation period for such references.

Conclusion: Article 137 does not apply to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and delay by itself is not a ground to deny relief.

Issue (ii): Whether, despite delay in raising the demand, the relief of reinstatement should be modified by reducing back wages.

Analysis: Although delay does not extinguish the workman's claim, the existence of admitted delay can justify moulding of relief. In appropriate cases, the adjudicatory authority may deny full back wages for the delayed period or award only part back wages so that the relief remains equitable. On the facts, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but the prolonged delay justified a reduction of back wages for the period before the award.

Conclusion: The workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but back wages were restricted as directed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the award of reinstatement was restored with modification, and the workman obtained substantial relief with partial back wages and continuity of service.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not govern references or proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, though delay may justify moulding the monetary relief without defeating the claim itself.

---