Belatancy and Suppression of Prior Litigation Render Industrial Reference of Termination Stale and Non-Maintainable

The concerned workman, Subodh Chandra Gorain, was dismissed from service on June 24, 1982, following a domestic inquiry into allegations of financial distortion and wage discrepancies.

After a delay of 15 years, the workman challenged the dismissal before the Calcutta High Court in 1997; the writ petition was dismissed in 1998 due to laches, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed in 1999 as time-barred.

Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised, leading to a reference by the Government in 2001 (19 years after dismissal).

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Dhanbad, issued an award on January 28, 2009, setting aside the dismissal and ordering reinstatement with full back wages, holding that the domestic inquiry was unfair and that industrial disputes have no limitation period.

1. Whether a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act can be maintainable when raised after a 19-year delay and after identical reliefs were denied by a High Court on grounds of laches.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of the previous dismissal of writ proceedings before the Calcutta High Court by the workman constitutes suppression of material facts.

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that an industrial dispute can be raised "at any time" regardless of whether the claim has become stale.

The Court primarily applied Section 10(1) and Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the reference of disputes.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, which established that while no formal limitation period exists under Section 10, a dispute must be "live" and not "stale" or "dead" due to unexplained delay or acquiescence.

The Court also distinguished the 3-year limitation under Section 2A(3), noting it applies only to direct applications to the Tribunal, not Government references.

The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning—that a reference cannot be rejected due to delay because there is no statutory limitation—to be perverse and contrary to established law.

Applying the Prabhakar principle, the Court noted that the 19-year delay was not satisfactorily explained and that the workman had effectively waived his right by failing to agitate the matter in a timely manner.

The Court determined that the workman suppressed material facts by failing to inform the Tribunal that the Calcutta High Court had already dismissed his challenge on the grounds of delay and laches.

The High Court held that the dispute had ceased to exist in praesenti and the Tribunal lacked the basis to grant relief on a stale claim.

The Court set aside the CGIT Award dated January 28, 2009, and allowed the writ petition.

No relief (reinstatement or back wages) was due to the legal heirs of the deceased workman.