https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169613 Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held not to be excluded by Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 where there was no dispute about minimum wage rates; that remedy is confined to disputes over prescribed rates and not a general machinery for recovery of amounts already due. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held to apply only to applications made to courts, not to Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals, so no limitation period governed applications under Section 33C(2). en-us Thu, 20 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:36:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169613 Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held not to be excluded by Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 where there was no dispute about minimum wage rates; that remedy is confined to disputes over prescribed rates and not a general machinery for recovery of amounts already due. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held to apply only to applications made to courts, not to Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals, so no limitation period governed applications under Section 33C(2). Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169613