The respondent, employed as a bus driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed from service on March 16, 1998, following a disciplinary proceeding related to an accident while driving a bus. The accident involved a collision with a private bus, which led to damages. The respondent allegedly reached a private settlement with the private bus owner and deposited the amount with the Kolhapur Depot. However, the disciplinary enquiry concluded that the respondent was guilty, and dismissal was the imposed penalty.

Despite filing first and second appeals, which were rejected by March 16, 2001, the respondent took no further action for over a decade. It wasn’t until March 13, 2014, that he approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, raising a grievance about his dismissal. This led to the initiation of an industrial dispute under Reference (IDA) No. 65 of 2014.

The Labour Court’s award, delivered on March 26, 2018, partly upheld the respondent’s claim, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the corporation to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and payment of 30% backwages from March 16, 1998, to the date of reinstatement. This decision was challenged by MSRTC on the grounds of the significant delay in raising the dispute.

MSRTC argued that the Labour Court should have dismissed the dispute due to the gross delay of 13 years in raising the grievance. It contended that the respondent had acquiesced in the dismissal and that the delay had caused serious prejudice to the corporation’s defense, including the inability to present evidence due to the passage of time. Furthermore, MSRTC argued that the Labour Court erred in awarding 30% backwages to the respondent after such an extended delay.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that no specific period of limitation exists for raising industrial disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). They argued that the delay should only impact the amount of backwages and not the right to reinstatement. They also pointed out that the delay was not relevant to the respondent’s entitlement to relief, as the dispute was still alive when the Labour Court adjudicated it.

The court referred to several landmark judgments that addressed the issue of delay in raising industrial disputes. In Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Workmen (1959), the Supreme Court held that an unreasonable delay in raising a dispute—like the four-year delay in the case of discharge of workers—could be fatal to the claim. Similarly, in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty (2000), the Supreme Court emphasized that industrial disputes could not be revived after a prolonged period, as the dispute would become stale.

These precedents highlight that even though the ID Act does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for raising industrial disputes, there must be a reasonable time frame within which disputes should be raised. A prolonged delay could lead to the dismissal of the claim, especially if the dispute no longer exists at the time the reference is made.

The court ultimately found the respondent’s delay in raising the dispute to be a significant issue. It noted that the dismissal occurred in 1998, and the grievance was only raised in 2014, a delay of 13 years. The court emphasized that the respondent had not pursued any legal recourse during this period, effectively acquiescing to the dismissal. The delay not only prejudiced the corporation’s ability to defend itself due to the loss of evidence but also caused financial implications for the corporation, which was required to reinstate the respondent and pay backwages after such a long period.

The court found that the delay was not just relevant to the issue of backwages but also to the question of reinstatement. The Labour Court had failed to consider the impact of the delay on the grant of relief. The delay in raising the grievance meant that the dispute could no longer be considered as "alive" by the time the matter reached the Labour Court. The court ruled that the award passed by the Labour Court was unsustainable, and it set aside the reinstatement order and the directive for payment of 30% backwages.

This case highlights the critical issue of delay in industrial disputes and the impact of such delays on the outcome of legal proceedings. While the Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe a specific limitation period for raising disputes, the courts have consistently held that a prolonged delay in seeking redressal can render a dispute stale and affect the relief granted to employees. The decision serves as a reminder to both employees and employers about the importance of timely action in disputes involving disciplinary proceedings and dismissal from service.

The court's ruling in this case reaffirms the principle that an employee cannot benefit from their own delay in asserting their rights, particularly when such delay prejudices the employer's ability to defend itself. The decision also underscores the need for the Labour Court to consider the issue of delay not only in the context of backwages but also when deciding on the reinstatement of an employee after a prolonged period.