https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169615 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). en-us Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:43:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169615 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). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169615