M. H. S. ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a workman, who was dismissed from service, has filed the instant writ application questioning the order passed by the learned First Labour Court in Case No. 2/2000/10 (lb) (d) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, which had been dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order which are to the following effect:"under Section 10 (lb) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, the conciliation officer shall on receipt of application under Clause (a) issue a certificate within 7 days from the date of receipt of such application. Under section 10 (lb) (c) the party may within a period of sixty days from the receipt of such certificate or where such certificate has not been issued within 7 days as aforesaid, within a period of sixty days commencing from the day immediately after the expiry of 7 days as aforesaid, file an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to such Labour Court as may be specified by the appropriate Government. The above formalities have not been observed strictly and the applicant has come up with the instant application beyond the period of limitation without any certificate for pendency of conciliation proceeding. In the circumstances, the instant case suffers from lacuna of legal formalities under the act and Rules and so it is not maintainable and the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the case. " ( 2 ) SECTION 10 (1b) was introduced by the state of West Bengal by Act No. 33 of 1989. The underlying object of the said provision is that where in a conciliation proceeding of a dispute, which is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) relating to an individual workman no settlement could be arrived at within a period of sixty days from the date of raising the dispute. The party raising the dispute may apply to the conciliation officer, who on receipt of the same should issue a certificate within 7 days. Thereafter, the party on receipt of such certificate may apply to the labour Court or Industrial Tribunal as may be specified by the appropriate Government. The party raising the dispute may apply to the conciliation officer, who on receipt of the same should issue a certificate within 7 days. Thereafter, the party on receipt of such certificate may apply to the labour Court or Industrial Tribunal as may be specified by the appropriate Government. The labour Court or Tribunal so specified by the appropriate Government shall within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of an application from such party after giving a hearing to the parties frame specific issues in dispute and shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the issues so framed by it as if it was a dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) BY this provision the procedure for adjudication of an industrial dispute relating to an individual has been simplified. This provision dispenses with the necessity of even a reference by the Government of such industrial dispute. The time frame has been fixed in the said provision for avoidance of delay. ( 4 ) THE object of the said provision is the redressal of grievances and adjudication of industrial disputes relating to an individual. The approach to an Industrial Tribunal/labour court is made more convenient and easily accessible in respect of disputes of an individual workman whose cause is not espoused by the union. The object being to curtail time before the conciliation officer so that the individual workman is not deprived of an expeditious resolution of an industrial dispute that may be raised by him. ( 5 ) JUDGED in the light of the above the impugned order cannot be sustained. There is no provision of the Limitation Act which has been cited in the order impugned in the instant case nor has any such provision been placed before the Court by the learned advocate for the respondent-company whereby it can be said that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation. ( 6 ) THE Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that the application filed by the petitioner-workman in the first instance was without a certificate as was required to be issued by the conciliation officer. Such certificate was subsequently applied for and granted on August 25, 2000, being annexure P-6. The workman submitted the said certificate along with an application in the pending application in Case No. 2 of 2000. Such certificate was subsequently applied for and granted on August 25, 2000, being annexure P-6. The workman submitted the said certificate along with an application in the pending application in Case No. 2 of 2000. Whatever irregularity existed at the time the application was made by the petitioner workman stood cured when the application was made accompanied with the certificate. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the conciliation officer has issued certificate about the pendency of the conciliation on August 25,2000, and that the said certificate has also been filed before the Labour Court. The delay in submitting the said certificate whereby any irregularity, which existed in the application of the petitioner stood cured has erroneously been treated by the Labour Court as delay and suffering "from lacuna of legal formalities under the Act. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) THE Labour Court, in my view, greviously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the formalities under the Act and the period prescribed therefor not having been observed strictly by the petitioner, the application of the petitioner workman was beyond the period of limitation and that the labour Court had no jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THERE can be no doubt with regard to the matter being within the jurisdiction of the labour Court. The jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the time frames prescribed under Section 10 (1b) of the Act were not adhered to by the petitioner workman. The provisions of Section 10 (1b) of the Act are beneficial provisions and thereby the procedure for adjudication of an industrial dispute relating to an individual has been simplified. The benefit of the provision is for an individual in his private capacity and does not serve any public purpose, interest or policy. Non-compliance with the periods prescribed in the provision would only make it an irregularity and not an illegality. ( 9 ) AS already noticed (supra) the object of the provision of Section 10 (1b) has not been kept in mind, no period of limitation has been prescribed for making such application under the limitation Act and therefore, to hold that the application is barred by limitation or that the tribunal has no jurisdiction cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) THE writ application is accordingly allowed. ( 11 ) THE impugned order rejecting the application is quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) THE writ application is accordingly allowed. ( 11 ) THE impugned order rejecting the application is quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTIAL direction shall issue to the labour Court to dispose of the matter in Case No. 2 of 2000710 (lb) (d) in accordance with the law. ( 13 ) BE it placed on record that this Court has not gone into the merits of the industrial dispute, which is directed to be disposed of in accordance with the law. ( 14 ) AS no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for the allegation made in the writ application is not admitted. ( 15 ) LET urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.