The worker's diligent action as a limit to the application of labor-law forfeiture

Abstract

This article analyzes the worker's diligent action as a limit to the automatic application of labor-law forfeiture, especially when, before filing the main claim, precautionary measures, constitutional proceedings, or other judicial actions aimed at protecting the same right have been pursued. The research adopts a qualitative, doctrinal-legal, documentary, analytical, critical, and propositional approach through a systematic examination of Peruvian legislation, legal scholarship, and case law. The findings show that forfeiture does not perform a uniform function across legal disciplines: while in civil law it primarily serves the stability of legal relations and in administrative sanctioning law it temporally limits the State's punitive power, in labor law it operates within a materially unequal relationship and is conditioned by the protective principle, the primacy of reality, the pro actione principle, and effective judicial protection. A prior, timely judicial action materially connected to the subsequent main claim demonstrates the unequivocal exercise of the right and excludes inaction attributable to the worker. In such cases, there is not strictly an interruption or suspension of the period, but rather an impeditive effect on forfeiture, provided that timeliness, material connection, substantial identity of the parties, procedural suitability, continuity, and good faith are present. The study concludes that diligent action does not eliminate the forfeiture period, but prevents its formalistic application when the worker has already timely activated judicial protection.