The court upheld the Labour Court's award on the grounds of procedural failures in the termination process, affirming that a fair inquiry must allow an employee access to critical evidence and adhere to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Award dated 30.07.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II in I.D. No.23/1997, titled as "Sh. G. V. Sharma V/s Air India Ltd" (hereinafter referred to as "impugned award"), wherein the Respondent was reinstated with 100% back wages during his period of unemployment.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The Petitioner was a government company at the time the dispute surfaced. The Respondent is a former workman in the Ground Handling Department of the Petitioner. He was appointed as a Junior Operator after undergoing training and a probationary period.

3. On 17.05.1989, while operating Tractor No. 3550, the Petitioner is alleged to have crashed into the pillar between the make-up area and the restroom, causing damage to the tractor and the pillar. The front suspension of the tractor had allegedly broken. The Petitioner management suspected the Respondent to be in a state of intoxication and hence immediately sent the workman to undergo a `Breathalyser' test, and their surmise was affirmed. Pending further enquiry, the workman was placed under suspension. He was subsequently charged with "Drunkenness whilst on duty" and "Causing damage to the equipment belonging to the Corporation" vide charge sheet dated 25.05.1989.

4. As a consequence of the charge sheet being issued, the respondent/workman was called to appear before the Enquiry Committee. The witnesses before the committee were Mr. P.N. Sinha. Sr. Tech. Officer, Mr. Chanakya, Apron Supervisor, Mr. Brij Mohan, Senior Security Assistant, Mr. U.R Sharma, Head Security Guard and Dr. Manoj.

5. With the examination in chief and cross-examination of the witnesses, the Enquiry Committee concluded the charges to be true. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the same and ordered the dismissal of service of the respondent/workman on 26.12.1989. To no avail, the respondent/workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority as well.

6. Aggrieved by the turn of events, the respondent/workman invoked an industrial dispute and a reference was made in 1997. The learned Labour Court, in its findings, concluded that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated, entitling the respondent/workman to reinstatement and full back wages during the period of unemployment. Hence the present writ has been filed.

7. Successively, several applications under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were filed by the Respondent in connection with this writ. With the initial applications being dismissed, this Court has awarded the respondent/workman back wages vide order dated 28.09.2011 for the period of unemployment with effect from 17.09.2007.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

8. Ms Padma Priya, learned counsel for the Petitioner averred that the respondent/workman approached the learned Labour Court as an afterthought which amounted to an inordinate delay. The order dated 26.12.1989, terminating the service of the respondent/workman has attained finality as no further action was taken by him for nearly 8 years. The Industrial Dispute has been belatedly raised to declare the dismissal order as illegal, unlawful and unjustified. Learned counsel had relied on Prabhakar Vs Joint Director Sericulture Department & Ors, reported as (2015) 15 SCC 1 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd Vs K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors, reported as (2000) 2 SCC 455 to state that the dispute had gone stale when the re