Unexplained nineteen-year delay in raising industrial dispute against fair departmental inquiry precludes judicial interference.

The respondent-workman, a conductor with the petitioner-Corporation since 1989, was charge-sheeted for misconduct after a 1995 inspection revealed he failed to collect fares or issue tickets to 11 passengers.

Following a departmental inquiry, a punishment of stoppage of 7 increments with future effect was imposed on 30.04.1996.

The workman accepted the punishment without challenge for 19 years.

In 2015, on the verge of retirement, he raised an industrial dispute.

The Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Reference (I.T.) No. 137 of 2015, quashed the punishment on 25.01.2017.

The petitioner challenged this award, noting that due to the 19-year delay, original records were no longer available.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside a punishment and interfere with the findings of an inquiry officer in the absence of evidence showing perversity or bias, especially when the validity of the inquiry was not challenged.

2. Whether an industrial dispute raised after an unexplained delay of 19 years is sustainable despite the absence of a prescribed limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The court applied the principle that while the Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe a strict limitation period, claims can be barred by laches and acquiescence if raised after an inordinate, unexplained delay.

If an inquiry is fair and proper and Section 11A is inapplicable (non-dismissal cases), a Labour Court cannot interfere with punishment unless the findings are perverse (South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd.).

Courts should not reduce punishments for financial misconduct based on misplaced sympathy (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar).

The Court observed that the workman explicitly waived any challenge to the validity of the departmental inquiry.

The Court reasoned that the Tribunal erred by quashing the punishment in a complete vacuum of evidence, as there was no material available to prove the inquiry findings were perverse because the petitioner-employer no longer possessed the documentary evidence of the 1995 incident due to the 19-year delay.

The Court found the 19-year delay "yawning" and "without any palatable explanation," concluding that the workman had legally acquiesced to the punishment through his long-term conduct.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 25.01.2017, and made the Rule absolute.