Labour Court cannot overturn disciplinary findings or modify punishment without first determining the departmental enquiry's invalidity.

The Respondent-Workman, a Head Cashier appointed in 1973, was dismissed from service on 07.02.1995 following a departmental enquiry into allegations of financial irregularities, including cash shortages and breach of trust.

After his appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority, the Workman raised an industrial dispute in 2006—approximately eleven years after his dismissal.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) passed an Award on 10.04.2008, setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement with 40% back wages and stoppage of four increments.

The Petitioner Bank challenged this Award via a Writ Petition under Article 226, contending the reference was stale and the Tribunal improperly acted as an appellate body.

1. Whether the learned Labour Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and setting aside the order of termination?

2. Whether the impugned Award suffers from any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226?

The Court relied on Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowers Tribunals to grant relief in cases of discharge/dismissal but requires judicious exercise.

It applied the principle from Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan that writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate.

Regarding disciplinary enquiries, the court followed B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Standard Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava, establishing that Tribunals shouldn't interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on "no evidence."

Finally, it cited Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhankutty and U.P. SRTC v. Babu Ram regarding the doctrine of "delay and laches," holding that stale claims (e.g., 7-11 years) are fatal to industrial disputes.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s approach legally infirm because it failed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue before re-evaluating the evidence.

The Tribunal improperly substituted its own subjective assessment, characterizing financial misappropriation as "mere negligence" without recording a specific finding that the enquiry violated natural justice or was "shockingly disproportionate".

Furthermore, the Court noted a "serious jurisdictional error" as the Tribunal completely ignored the 11-year delay in raising the dispute, which rendered the claim stale under settled law.

The Court emphasized that a Head Cashier occupies a position of high trust, and the Tribunal’s "oversimplification" of the charges failed to account for individual accountability in handling public funds.

The Court set aside the CGIT Award dated 10.04.2008 and restored the Bank's order of dismissal dated 07.02.1995.

The Court clarified that wages already paid to the Respondent under Section 17B of the Act during the pendency of the petition remain non-recoverable.

The Writ Petition was allowed.