Limitation under Article 137 does not apply to Section 33C(2) claims for computed monetary workmen's benefits.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as confined to applications made to courts, so it did not govern applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Labour Court was not regarded as a court for that purpose, and the limitation objection therefore failed. Section 33C(2) was also distinguished from Section 33C(1): where a workman seeks computation of a monetary benefit, and the entitlement is not dependent on a prior award or settlement, the claim falls within Section 33C(2). Holiday benefit claims requiring monetary computation were accordingly maintainable under Section 33C(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the claim for computation of holiday benefits in money was maintainable under Section 33C(2) rather than Section 33C(1).

Issue (i): Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Analysis: Article 137 was held to contemplate applications to courts. The scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963, including the provisions relating to closure of courts on holidays and condonation of delay, was treated as showing that the Act is directed to applications made to courts. On that view, the Labour Court was not regarded as a court for the purpose of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for computation of holiday benefits in money was maintainable under Section 33C(2) rather than Section 33C(1)

Analysis: Section 33C(1) was treated as dealing with money due under a settlement, award, or Chapter VA, while Section 33C(2) covers cases where a workman is entitled to receive money or a benefit capable of computation in money. The claims for holiday benefits required computation of the monetary value of the benefit and did not rest on any prior award or settlement. Rule 62(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 supported the procedure for such applications.

Conclusion: The applications were properly filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the workers' applications for computation and recovery of monetary benefits under Section 33C(2) were sustained, resulting in allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the Labour Court's contrary view on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to applications to courts, and a claim for computation of a workman's monetary entitlement capable of assessment in money lies within Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

---