Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
..... the applications filed u/s.10(4-a) beyond 6 months and condone the delay for sufficient cause in view of sec.5 of limitation act. 22. in view of the reasons and discussions made above, it is to be held that the government will have no jurisdiction to make ..... delay in filing the application beyond 6 months for sufficient cause. in the khaleel ahmeds case, the question of applicability u/s.5 of limitation act is not argued and considered and the said aspect being res integra it is to be held that the labour court will have jurisdiction to entertain ..... act, 1947. 10. the counsel also relied upon decision of supreme court in ajaibsingh vs. sirhind co-op. marketing-cum-processing service society ltd, and another, 1999 lab 1435 wherein it is held that article 137 of the limitation act, 1963 is not applicable for the reference made u/s.10(i)(c). the decision of the full bench of the punjab ..... 10 the following observations are made: 10. it follows, therefore, that the provisions of article 137 of the schedule to limitation act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. the plea of delay ..... wages. in w.p.no.82272/2009, the respondent was working as daily wage-worker from 1982 to 30.9.1987 in the office of sericulture extension officer, bijapur. the respondent was terminated from service on 30.9.1987. the government made reference. there was delay of 18 years in making reference. .....Tag this Judgment!