Correction in a labour reference case.

As far as my understanding goes to show, there is only a three years time limit for raising an industrial dipsute under Section 2A(2). However, there is no proivions of condonation of delay. 

In the earlier section 10(1B)(d), there was no such time frame. But there are many judgements basis on which cases have dismissed as the dispute became "stale dispute". 

I do not have much idea whether if there is an error (typographical) in the order of reference, whether provisions of time barred applies or not. 

But generally speaking, 3 years have passed from the date of reference to filing your petition.

Appear well prepared, on said date and for said purpose as in order.

Thereafter you can remind for the said correction.

From your posts it is suggested that you may engage a very able counsel specializing in   Labor/service matters.

Dear Mr. Ritesh, Thank you very much for your input. I have also been searching judgments to acertain whether limitation act lays down any such restriction but found non. However, it has been laid down by the apex court that o/o the Dy. Labour Commissioner can perform administrative acts only. Therefore, IF CONDONATION OF DELAY FALLS UNDER QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS THEN THE DY. L.C IS NOT COMPETENT TO PERFORM SUCH ACT. But I am not aware whether condonation of delay is adminstrative or quasi-judicial act. It is pertinent to add here that the said mistake in the spellings of name was discovered by the Dy. L.C's office only and was corrected by it on it's own in corrigendum dated 18.01.2017. Is it proper for the Dy. L.C's office to call on me for condonation of delay when the mistake has been already corrected by his office? pls enlighten.

Dear Mr. Ritesh, Thank you very much for your input. I have also been searching judgments to acertain whether limitation act lays down any such restriction but found non. However, it has been laid down by the apex court that o/o the Dy. Labour Commissioner can perform administrative acts only. Therefore, IF CONDONATION OF DELAY FALLS UNDER QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS THEN THE DY. L.C IS NOT COMPETENT TO PERFORM SUCH ACT. But I am not aware whether condonation of delay is adminstrative or quasi-judicial act. It is pertinent to add here that the said mistake in the spellings of name was discovered by the Dy. L.C's office only and was corrected by it on it's own in corrigendum dated 18.01.2017. Is it proper for the Dy. L.C's office to call on me for condonation of delay when the mistake has been already corrected by his office? pls enlighten.

Dear mr. Kumar Thanks for your reply. I am following your posts for last about 4 years and I have found them quite informative and helpful in my case too. The actual problem is that labour courts in Karkardooma court compex at Delhi is full of corrupt lawyers (I am saying so only because they dress like advocates and introduce themself as advocates/vakeels). As already mentioned in my previous posts, I have tried 3 such advocates and had been deceived by them. I even wittnessed one of them accepting money from the counsel of employer and hence excused them and decided to persue the case in person. Had I not done so my case would have been rejected long ago. It is pertinent to add here that even the acts of the P.O. are indicative of bias (I am not going in details as it will run into several pages). It has already been proved that:- 1）the notice of resignation was tendered under force and provocation. 2）A conditional offer was made by the empoyer which was rejected and thereafter notice of resignation was withdrawn much before it could be accepted as per terms of appointment. (There is no acceptance of resignation till date). 3）Accounts were not settled, even earned wages have not been paid. 4）I had never been relieved. Justice is being delayed on petty technical issue although it has been held in many cases that misspelling of names is a "clerical error" meaning they are common and can be disregarded if the person can otherwise be properly identified. The P.O., it seems is trying to frustrate me and tire me out so that either I give-up my claim or settle for something less than what I am entitle to.

Dear mr. Kumar Thanks for your reply. I am following your posts for last about 4 years and I have found them quite informative and helpful in my case too. The actual problem is that labour courts in Karkardooma court compex at Delhi is full of corrupt lawyers (I am saying so only because they dress like advocates and introduce themself as advocates/vakeels). As already mentioned in my previous posts, I have tried 3 such advocates and had been deceived by them. I even wittnessed one of them accepting money from the counsel of employer and hence excused them and decided to persue the case in person. Had I not done so my case would have been rejected long ago. It is pertinent to add here that even the acts of the P.O. are indicative of bias (I am not going in details as it will run into several pages). It has already been proved that:- 1）the notice of resignation was tendered under force and provocation. 2）A conditional offer was made by the empoyer which was rejected and thereafter notice of resignation was withdrawn much before it could be accepted as per terms of appointment. (There is no acceptance of resignation till date). 3）Accounts were not settled, even earned wages have not been paid. 4）I had never been relieved. Justice is being delayed on petty technical issue although it has been held in many cases that misspelling of names is a "clerical error" meaning they are common and can be disregarded if the person can otherwise be properly identified. The P.O., it seems is trying to frustrate me and tire me out so that either I give-up my claim or settle for something less than what I am entitle to.