Unexplained twenty-year delay in challenging punishment order renders industrial dispute stale and non-existent.

The respondent, a bus conductor for the petitioner-Corporation, was found guilty of misconduct on 23.05.1986 for failing to issue tickets to three passengers

Consequently, the petitioner imposed a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect on 30.07.1986

In 2006, the respondent was terminated after being declared medically unfit

Twenty-two years after the initial punishment (and after termination), the respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (IT) No. 91 of 2008, set aside the 1986 punishment order as illegal and unjust via an award dated 20.04.2012

The petitioner challenged this award before the High Court, asserting the claim was barred by gross delay and laches

1. Whether an industrial dispute challenging a punishment order can be entertained after an unexplained delay of 21-22 years.

2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in setting aside a punishment order solely because the employer failed to produce 20-year-old inquiry records.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing delay and laches in industrial disputes as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Another (2015) 15 SCC 1

While the Limitation Act does not strictly apply to the Industrial Disputes Act, a dispute must exist in praesenti; if a workman fails to raise a demand within a reasonable time without a satisfactory explanation, the dispute is treated as "dead" or non-existent

The court also noted that the burden lies on the employee to demonstrate that the dispute remains "live" despite the lapse of time

The Court observed that the respondent waited 21 years to challenge the 1986 punishment order and only did so after his services were terminated on other grounds in 2006

Applying the Prabhakar precedent, the Court reasoned that such a long silence constitutes acquiescence or waiver of rights, meaning no "industrial dispute" existed within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act

Furthermore, the Court criticized the Tribunal for penalizing the petitioner for not producing inquiry records after two decades, noting it is unreasonable to expect an employer to preserve such documents indefinitely

The Court characterized the respondent’s belated litigation as an attempt to extract undue monetary benefits following retirement

The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal committed a manifest error by ignoring the aspect of delay and laches

Consequently, the judgment and award dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (IT) No. 91 of 2008 was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and Rule was made absolute