Delay in industrial dispute challenge does not bar relief if arrears are denied to prevent prejudice.

The appellant-workman was a permanent Heavy Vehicle Driver for the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

On 11.10.1995, while driving a bus from Udaipur to Rajkot, he handed the steering to a co-driver (Suleman Sumarbhai) who was traveling in the same bus, due to sudden, unbearable stomach pain

The Corporation deemed this "major misconduct" and issued a charge sheet

Following an inquiry and subsequent appeals, a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was imposed

In 2013, the workman raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal

In 2015, the Tribunal quashed the punishment as disproportionate but denied back-arrears due to a 15-year delay in raising the dispute

The Corporation challenged this in a Writ Petition; the learned Single Judge set aside the Tribunal’s award, holding that the 16-year delay was fatal to the workman's case

Whether the inordinate delay of 16 years in raising an industrial dispute over the penalty was fatal to the workman’s claim despite the merits of the case

Whether the act of handing over a vehicle to a qualified co-driver under medical necessity constitutes such major misconduct as to warrant a permanent reduction in pay

The court applied the principle of proportionality in disciplinary matters and the judicial discretion to condone delay under the Industrial Disputes Act to subserve the interest of justice

It further relied on the doctrine that if any delay is balanced by the denial of back-wages or arrears (moulding of relief), it causes no serious prejudice to the employer

The Court reasoned that the delay did not prejudice the Corporation because the Industrial Tribunal had already protected the employer's interests by denying the workman arrears for the past period

On the merits, the Court observed that the workman did not entrust the vehicle to a stranger, but to a qualified fellow driver of the same Corporation due to a medical emergency

This action ensured that neither the Corporation nor the passengers were put at risk

Consequently, the Court found the punishment of withholding two increments with future effect—which resulted in a permanent reduction of basic pay—to be "indeed disproportionate" given the absence of loss to the Corporation

The Court concluded that the delay was rightly condoned by the Tribunal to achieve the ultimate interest of justice

The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision to quash the punishment was correct and restored the award

The relief remains restricted as per the Tribunal's original order: the workman's pay is to be fixed notionally without entitlement to any arrears for the past period