Explore Policy Nepal

Regulation

Labour Court (Procedure) Regulations, 2052 BS

English title translated by Policy Nepal for navigation. The Nepali legal text is authoritative.

Type
Regulation
Year
२०५२ BS
Status
Repealed
Official text
Official page Official text (PDF)

Nepali translation awaiting review

The explanation below cites its sources. A summary does not establish that gaps or conflicts have been fully reviewed. Corrections with supporting sources are welcome.

What does it do?

Summary updated 2026-10-25

  • This is a historical summary of the Labour Court (Procedure) Rules, 2052, from the Law Commission's consolidated edition. The first page gives Nepal Gazette publication on 2052/9/18 and lists no amendments. The rules were made under section 86 of the Labour Act 2048, took effect immediately, and governed the Labour Court formed under section 72 of that Act. The catalogue records the rules as repealed from the Law Commission's repealed-laws listing; this edition does not say when or by what, and no repeal date is inferred. Nothing here is current labour-dispute guidance.यो श्रम अदालत (कार्यविधि) नियमावली, २०५२ को ऐतिहासिक सारांश हो, जसको आधार कानून आयोगको एकीकृत संस्करण हो। पहिलो पृष्ठमा नेपाल राजपत्रमा प्रकाशित मिति २०५२।९।१८ उल्लेख छ र कुनै संशोधन सूचीकृत छैन। यो नियमावली श्रम ऐन, २०४८ को दफा ८६ ले दिएको अधिकार प्रयोग गरी बनेको, तुरुन्त प्रारम्भ भएको र सोही ऐनको दफा ७२ बमोजिम गठित श्रम अदालतको कार्यविधि तोक्ने थियो। कानून आयोगको खारेज भएका कानूनको सूचीका आधारमा सूचीमा यो नियमावली खारेज भएको उल्लेख छ; यो संस्करणले कहिले वा कुन कानूनबाट खारेज भयो भन्दैन र खारेजी मिति अनुमान गरिएको छैन। यहाँको कुनै कुरा हालको श्रम विवादसम्बन्धी निर्देशन होइन। Nepal Law Commissionनेपाल कानून आयोग Source accessed 2026-10-25 Title page, publication date, preamble and Rules 1-2, PDF p.1; repeal status from catalogue
  • The Government could appoint one or more case-hearing officers to the court, naming one as chair if there were several. With several officers, they acted jointly, the chair had to be on every bench, and the majority view prevailed; if there was no majority, the matter went to a full bench, where the chair's view was final on procedure and, on final decisions, the case was referred to the appellate court for guidance. A person affected by an offence that the Labour Act or other law sent to the Labour Court could file a complaint there or, where there was no court, at the labour office, which gave a receipt and forwarded it within seven days. The complaint had to give the parties' names, addresses and fathers' names, the court, the facts, the Act giving jurisdiction, the law relied on, the limitation position and evidence, with copies for each respondent.सरकारले अदालतमा एक वा बढी मुद्दा हेर्ने अधिकारी तोक्न सक्थ्यो र एकभन्दा बढी भए एकलाई अध्यक्ष तोकिन्थ्यो। एकभन्दा बढी अधिकारी भएमा अधिकार क्षेत्र सामूहिक रूपमा प्रयोग हुन्थ्यो, इजलासमा अध्यक्षको उपस्थिति अनिवार्य हुन्थ्यो र बहुमतको राय अदालतको निर्णय मानिन्थ्यो; बहुमत नभए सबै अधिकारीको इजलासमा पेश हुन्थ्यो, जहाँ कारबाहीको विषयमा अध्यक्षको राय अन्तिम हुन्थ्यो र मुद्दा किनाराको विषयमा पुनरावेदन अदालतको साधक जाहेर गरी निकासा भएबमोजिम गर्नुपर्थ्यो। श्रम ऐन वा अन्य कानूनले श्रम अदालतबाट कारबाही र किनारा हुने तोकेको कसुरमा मर्का पर्ने व्यक्तिले अदालतमा, र अदालत नभएको ठाउँमा श्रम कार्यालयमा उजुरी दिन सक्थ्यो; श्रम कार्यालयले निस्सा दिई सात दिनभित्र अदालतमा पठाउनुपर्थ्यो। उजुरीमा पक्षहरूको नाम, थर, वतन र बाबुको नाम, अदालत, सिलसिलेवार व्यहोरा, क्षेत्राधिकार दिने ऐन, सम्बन्धित कानून, हदम्याद र प्रमाण खुलाई प्रत्येक प्रतिवादीका लागि नक्कल पेश गर्नुपर्थ्यो। Nepal Law Commissionनेपाल कानून आयोग Source accessed 2026-10-25 Rules 3-7, PDF pp.2-4
  • The court registered a complaint the same day and gave a receipt and date, or could ask for missing details; it could dismiss, with reasons, a complaint not based in law or lacking adequate evidence, with notice through the labour office (posting on its notice board counted as notice if service failed). Summonses were served on the respondent or an adult household member, otherwise posted with local witnesses at the ward or VDC office or a public place, though not where a wrong address was given; staff had to serve them normally within two days. Respondents could give an oral statement instead of a written reply; parties called and examined witnesses, the court could order any person to appear or produce documents, others with an interest could submit rebuttal evidence within seven days, and parties could file written arguments through a licensed lawyer.अदालतले उजुरी सोही दिन दर्ता गरी निस्सा र तारिख दिन्थ्यो वा छुटेका कुरा खुलाउन लगाउन सक्थ्यो; कानूनमा आधारित नभएको वा पर्याप्त प्रमाण नभएको उजुरी कारण खोली खारेज गर्न सक्थ्यो र श्रम कार्यालयमार्फत जानकारी दिइन्थ्यो (तामेल हुन नसके सूचना पाटीमा टाँसेपछि जानकारी पाएको मानिन्थ्यो)। म्याद प्रतिवादी वा एकाघरको उमेर पुगेको सदस्यलाई बुझाइन्थ्यो; नभए वडा सदस्य वा दुई स्थानीयको रोहवरमा गाउँ विकास समिति वा वडा कार्यालय वा सार्वजनिक स्थानमा टाँस गरिन्थ्यो, तर गलत ठेगानाका कारण पत्ता नलागेमा टाँसलाई रीतपूर्वकको तामेल मानिँदैनथ्यो; कर्मचारीले सामान्यतया दुई दिनभित्र तामेल गर्नुपर्थ्यो। प्रतिवादीले प्रतिउत्तरपत्रको सट्टा मौखिक बयान दिन सक्थ्यो; साक्षी उपस्थित गराउने दायित्व पक्षको हुन्थ्यो, अदालतले कुनै व्यक्तिलाई उपस्थित हुन वा लिखत पेश गर्न आदेश दिन सक्थ्यो, सरोकारवालाले सात दिनभित्र खण्डनको प्रमाण पेश गर्न सक्थे र पक्षले स्वीकृत कानून व्यवसायीमार्फत लिखित बहस नोट दिन सक्थे। Nepal Law Commissionनेपाल कानून आयोग Source accessed 2026-10-25 Rules 8-16, PDF pp.4-8
  • After evidence was taken a party could, with leave, skip hearing dates, though the court could order attendance. Lapsed time limits could not normally be restored, except up to two times for a total of 15 days for reasons beyond a party's control, or as the Muluki Ain court-management chapter allowed. A case could not be dismissed for a missed date after the plaintiff's evidence was in. Cases were to be decided normally within 90 days of the reply, statement or deadline, and judgment given within 15 days of the case being ready; parties could settle at any stage free of fees. Judgments were read to parties or notified within seven days, and the Government was responsible for enforcing them. Anyone aggrieved by a decision or order of a body or official under the law could appeal to the court within 35 days of learning of it, directly or through the labour office; appeals were to be decided normally within 90 days of receiving the file. Copies cost Rs 2 per page and petitions a Rs 5 fee; the court could issue interim orders and sit at other places in its area.प्रमाण बुझिसकेपछि पक्षले अदालतको अनुमतिमा तारिखमा नबस्न सक्थ्यो, तर अदालतले उपस्थित हुन आदेश दिन सक्थ्यो। गुज्रेको म्याद वा तारिख सामान्यतया थामिँदैनथ्यो; पक्षको काबुबाहिरको परिस्थितिमा बढीमा दुई पटक गरी जम्मा पन्ध्र दिनसम्म वा मुलुकी ऐन अदालती बन्दोबस्तको महलबमोजिम थामिन सक्थ्यो। वादीले प्रमाण पेश गरेपछि तारिख गुजारेको कारण मुद्दा डिसमिस गर्न हुँदैनथ्यो। प्रतिउत्तर, बयान वा म्याद भुक्तान भएको मितिले सामान्यतया नब्बे दिनभित्र मुद्दा किनारा र छिन्नेअंग पुगेको पन्ध्र दिनभित्र फैसला गर्नुपर्थ्यो; पक्षहरूले जुनसुकै अवस्थामा दस्तुरबिना मिलापत्र गर्न सक्थे। फैसला सुनाइन्थ्यो वा सात दिनभित्र जनाउ दिइन्थ्यो र कार्यान्वयनको दायित्व नेपाल सरकारको हुन्थ्यो। कानूनबमोजिम कुनै निकाय वा पदाधिकारीको निर्णय वा आदेशमा चित्त नबुझ्नेले जानकारी पाएको पैंतीस दिनभित्र सिधै वा श्रम कार्यालयमार्फत अदालतमा पुनरावेदन दिन सक्थ्यो; मिसिल प्राप्त भएको सामान्यतया नब्बे दिनभित्र पुनरावेदन किनारा गर्नुपर्थ्यो। नक्कल प्रतिपाना दुई रुपैयाँ र निवेदन दस्तुर पाँच रुपैयाँ थियो; अदालतले अन्तरकालीन आदेश दिन र आफ्नो क्षेत्रभित्र अन्यत्र इजलास राख्न सक्थ्यो। Nepal Law Commissionनेपाल कानून आयोग Source accessed 2026-10-25 Rules 17-38, PDF pp.8-15

Gaps, loopholes and improvement ideas

A sourced assessment of gaps and improvement options is not published for this law yet. This does not establish that the law has no gaps.

Found a gap or loophole in this law? Propose an amendment →

Where does it conflict with other laws?

A provision-by-provision conflict assessment is not published for this law yet. This does not establish that it is consistent with every other law.

Explore the sourced research questions

Page source check recorded 2026-10-25 · Check schedule pending. This records source work on this page, not confirmation of current legal force or completed legal review. Individual source dates are shown below.

How we know this

Policy Nepal publishes only what official records state. We do not invent or estimate facts; where a record is missing or unclear, we say so. Listings last compiled 2026-10-21. Our approach

Spotted an error, a loophole or a better source? Email feedback@policynepal.org. Please include the official source. We read every message but cannot promise a reply.