The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

This Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30th September 2020 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(L) No.6995 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the husband of the appellant has been dismissed.

2. W.P.(L) No.6995 of 2012 was filed by Johnson Lakra and after dismissal of the writ petition, he filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. However, during the pendency of this Appeal, the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “workman”) has expired and now the case is being pursued by Bilcho Kujur, claiming to be the wife of Johnson Lakra. The present appellant was substituted vide order dated 25th August 2023.

3. The learned writ Court recorded its findings in paragraphs nos.12 to 17, the extracts of the aforesaid paragraphs are as under: -

“12. Be that as it may, after hearing counsel for the parties at length and from perusal of the documents brought on record and the judgments relied upon by the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly, there has been unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The reference has been made by the appropriate authority after lapse of more than eight years and further, during the evidence, the workman had stated that he was working with other company for some months after the termination made by the respondent management. Hence, it can comfortably be said that the present reference is stale one and the present dispute has lost its significance and as on date, no dispute is in existence. Even the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was held to be fair and proper.

13. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under:

“6. Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time When the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.

7. In the present appeal it is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his dismissal, were in any way illegal or there was even any irregularity. He availed his remedy of appeal under the rules governing his conditions of service. It could not be said that in the circumstances industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become industrial dispute and appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming as industrial dispute. Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under sect