https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200859 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). en-us Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:21:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200859 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). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200859