JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARAMDHIKARI, J. 1. The employer assails the judgment dated 9.9.2009 delivered by learned single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No. 3618/2008 filed by the respondent no. 1-workman. In this Letters Patent Appeal on 22nd March 2010 this Court granted interim stay to the operation and effect of the impugned judgment and that interim order has been confirmed. 2. In this backdrop, we have heard Shri A.S. Mehadia, learned Advocate for the appellant. Nobody has appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. Short contention of Advocate Mehadia is, apart from huge delay in approaching the reference machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act (in short “the Act”), independently prejudice caused to employer has also come on record, inasmuch as the employer could not produce the records of departmental enquiry. He further states that because of this failure departmental enquiry was found to be vitiated and appellant led the evidence to substantiate the misconduct. Accepting that evidence, the respondent no. 2-Industrial Tribunal delivered the award in favour of the appellant. It found the proceedings to be stale, misconduct established. The learned Single Judge has taken a different view of same material and, thus, re-appreciated the entire evidence which should not have been done in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that making of alleged representations was not the reason for approaching belatedly or for explaining the delay and hence delay ought not to have been accepted in such a matter. As the misconduct has been proved by adducing evidence before Industrial Court, the findings that charge-sheet was in English language and, therefore, workman may not have understood it or then oral evidence adduced by witnesses after 23 years in support of misconduct or abuses pointed out by them could not have been cross-checked with any other material, are the reasons given by the learned single Judge. These were not the contentions raised before respondent no. 2. 4. To point out how such a stale proceeding needs to be dealt with, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and an order of this Court dated 24th June, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 6232/2014. 5. To point out how such a stale proceeding needs to be dealt with, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and an order of this Court dated 24th June, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 6232/2014. 5. To explain how misconduct as is involved in present matter needs to be dealt with departmentally, he is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 143 . 6. With assistance of Advocate Mehadia, we have looked into the relevant papers. Perusal of the above award dated 21st May, 2008 delivered by the CGIT reveals that following question was referred to it, under section 10(2A) of the Act:- “Whether the action of the management of Rajur sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in terminating Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Babulal Gupta Cat. I Mazdoor from services is legal and justified? If not to what relief Sh. Gupta is entitled to?” 7. Perusal of award reveals assertions of workman in his statement of claim. He joined employment as General Mazdoor in 1982 and worked upto 11.7.1984 when he was dismissed. He claims that he was taken back on same day and dismissal order was therefore not served upon him. He also states that in his statement of claim, he learnt about dismissal order after 1989. 8. Narration of events by him shows that on 6.2.1984 he applied for a loan of Rs. 2000/- and he was asked to sign the register without paying any amount and therefore, he approached the Management but he was driven out of the office with threats that he would be made over to police. He was then served with the charge sheet on 10.5.1984 and kept under suspension. He was not given any opportunity in departmental enquiry and he repeatedly represented till 1989, but he was not taken back. The respondents filed their written statement and CGIT notes that on 5.2.1984 workman at 11.00 am entered the office of Project Officer, Rajur Sub-Area and misbehaved with him. He tried to blackmail the Project Officer stating that he would publish some material regarding misappropriation and he also threatened to kill him. The respondents filed their written statement and CGIT notes that on 5.2.1984 workman at 11.00 am entered the office of Project Officer, Rajur Sub-Area and misbehaved with him. He tried to blackmail the Project Officer stating that he would publish some material regarding misappropriation and he also threatened to kill him. Hence Departmental enquiry was initiated and after proper opportunity he was dismissed on 11.7.1984. He approached the conciliation machinery on 21.7.1997 i.e. almost after 13 years. 9. The CGIT has considered the aspect of delay and laches in paragraph 5 of its award. The workman gave reason of representations made by him and promises extended to him. He filed about 14 representations in CGIT on 23.4.2007. The CGIT observed that same were not copies at all and in the handwriting of workman without any acknowledgment or any signature in token of it s receipt. It has observed that such type of documents can be prepared at any time and were not reliable. It has then also commented that even if one representation per year is presumed, they could not help workman in justifying delay. The appropriate government on earlier occasion, refused to refer the matter to CGIT and for reasons not on record, the said government changed its earlier decision. The CGIT also finds that there was nothing on record to show any assurance or promise given to workman. It also found absence of order of dismissal in enquiry papers. The workman did not produce any document to show that he received dismissal order in 1989. His affidavit- evidence was also silent about it. He did not assign absence of service of termination order as reason for belated approach. The Industrial Court could not understand how the year 1989 was mentioned by him and what was the base for it. It has been looked into the relevant citations and concluded on a ground of delay that reference was liable to be dismissed but then proceed to record its reasons also on merits of the controversy. 10. In the backdrop of these findings on facts, when the aspect of delay as has been looked into by learned Single Judge is considered, the learned Single Judge has found the Labour Court in error in not accepting the representations only because of absence of acknowledgment of its service upon employer. 10. In the backdrop of these findings on facts, when the aspect of delay as has been looked into by learned Single Judge is considered, the learned Single Judge has found the Labour Court in error in not accepting the representations only because of absence of acknowledgment of its service upon employer. It has noticed that these documents (representations) were produced on 8.2.2008 and last document with said list was dated 14.5.2001 and this was the letter written by District Legal Aid Officer, Seoni (Madhya Pradesh) to Secretary, Labour Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi. The learned Single Judge found that no acknowledgment was produced but considering the nature of workman who was appointed as General Mazdoor and who remained firm in cross- examination regarding those representations and claimed that acknowledgments were never given to him, and absence of any challenge thereto, the explanation furnished by workman for not obtaining the receipts could not have been rejected. It also took note of the fact that a total of 14 letters were produced by him with list of documents dated 23.4.2007 and these letters were for a period from 13.5.1989 to 21.12.1998. These letters were again proved by workman. It therefore accepted the fact that he made number of representations. It therefore also found that he made number of representations and ultimately reached the right authority. It found that he indulged in correspondence without understanding the exact authority for ventilation of his grievance. The learned single Judge has taken note of letter dated 20.12.1989 sent as reminder to employer seeking information about workman with reference to letter No. 1242 dated 16/24th July, 1989. The learned single Judge observed that the grievance of workman was taken up for redressal on 14.5.2001. The letter dated 14.5.2001 shows that from 1989 till 1999 the District Legal Aid Committee, Seoni, made correspondence about the case of petitioner and District Judge, Chandrapur was informed about it. It has then referred to another communication dated 20/21st September, 2000 when Western Coalfields wrote a letter to Section Officer, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi, informing about the case of petitioner. All these has been looked in to conclude that mere delay as such could not have been used to reject the claim of workman. 11. It has then referred to another communication dated 20/21st September, 2000 when Western Coalfields wrote a letter to Section Officer, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi, informing about the case of petitioner. All these has been looked in to conclude that mere delay as such could not have been used to reject the claim of workman. 11. Perusal of judgment reported in Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and Another, (supra) shows that there the Hon’ble Apex Court has looked into precedents where delay of four years or seven years was found fatal. In paragraph 22 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also pointed out the settled principle of no work for no pay. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in order dated 24th June 2016 while allowing Writ Petition No. 6232/2014 noted facts that after termination of services of workman in that case on 15.7.1991, no steps were taken till 2012 and in 2012 for the first time, be approached the Conciliation Officer. 13. The facts of matter at hand are quite different. Though workman was dismissed in 1984 here, it appears that he made some correspondence and because of that correspondence only the District Legal Aid Committee also sent some communications to his employer and also to office of District Court at Chandrapur. Because of these correspondence, the appellant-WCL also wrote to the Ministry of Coal, New Delhi. 14. This material which has been looked into by learned Single Judge does not find consideration in award delivered by Industrial Tribunal. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Coop. Marketing, AIR 1999 SC 1354, held that mere delay or laches by itself is not fatal in such matters. The employer has to prove that the situation has become irreversible for it. This decision of Hon’ble Apex Court has been followed recently, in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. Haryana Roadways, Hissar, (2014) 10 SCC 301 , by Hon’ble Apex Court only. 16. In the present case, the employer raised grounds of delay or laches but then did not plead any prejudice. When the Industrial Tribunal asked the employer to produce the records of departmental enquiry, even at that juncture, the employer did not file any affidavit pointing out that due to lapse of time, records were destroyed. 16. In the present case, the employer raised grounds of delay or laches but then did not plead any prejudice. When the Industrial Tribunal asked the employer to produce the records of departmental enquiry, even at that juncture, the employer did not file any affidavit pointing out that due to lapse of time, records were destroyed. The learned single Judge has taken note of this sorry state of affairs also. The employer could have then relied upon the provisions in Departmental Manual which requires it to observe such records to be preserved for a particular number of years and could have produced other records to show that departmental enquiry papers in relation to present workman were destroyed, that has not been done. 17. In above judgments though Hon’ble Apex Court has found that delay cannot be used to deny the relief and in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted moulding of relief. It has observed that the Industrial Tribunal can in such circumstances deny back wages. 18. Hence, it will be proper to look into the findings on misconduct as recorded by learned Industrial Tribunal. In Paragraph 8 of its award, the Industrial Court has mentioned evidence of then Project Officer Shri Barve. His evidence reveals that workman entered his chamber demanding loan and on his refusal, started threatening and abusing him in filthy words. The Industrial Court mentions that Shri Barve told actual words employed by workman. The Security Guard and Clerks rushed and took the workman forcibly out of chamber. The Industrial Court found that this evidence is supported by one Shri Khond and Shri Kashyap who worked as Clerk and Security Guard respectively. It has also come on record that despite opportunity of cross-examination given to workman, the evidence of these persons has remained unshaken. 19. When Shri Barve was examined by employer, he had already retired. He earlier had no hostility against the workman and even after retirement he was not on cross-terms. The Industrial Tribunal observed that he therefore was disinterested person. The Industrial Court in paragraph 9 after accepting this version has also noticed that there was no reason for the workman to go to the chamber of Shri Barve and story that his signature was obtained appeared to be apocryphal, afterthought and baseless. The Industrial Tribunal observed that he therefore was disinterested person. The Industrial Court in paragraph 9 after accepting this version has also noticed that there was no reason for the workman to go to the chamber of Shri Barve and story that his signature was obtained appeared to be apocryphal, afterthought and baseless. It found that though workman claimed to be permanent, he could not prove it and he had hardly worked for two years before his dismissal. In Paragraph 10 it has taken note of say of workman that his signature was obtained in register on the revenue stamp for having received the amount though it was not paid. The Industrial Court noticed that his own evidence reveals that it was his first approach for loan and evidence tendered by employer reveals that workman had not applied for any loan at all. The Industrial Court has found it difficult to believe that had the workman applied, immediately on that day only, the loan could have been sanctioned and disbursed. Thus, his entire entire story of attempting to avail the loan is not accepted by CGIT. 20. The learned single Judge has in paragraph 10 of his judgment, considered the merits of the controversy. It has taken note of the limited jurisdiction available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but then thought it proper to dwell more as oral evidence was tendered before Industrial Court 23 years later in absence of any previous background. Because of this reason only, it found it necessary to interfere even on question of facts and appreciation of evidence. First reason given by the learned single Judge to justify this course is inability to workman to understand the English language. The charge sheet was in English language. The stand of workman before Industrial Court does not show that he was not in a position 10 to understand English language. He has not made any grievance about the language of charge-sheet or of dismissal order. The learned single Judge has found that even if workman did not raise any grievance about it, the High Court cannot ignore the ground reality. 21. He has not made any grievance about the language of charge-sheet or of dismissal order. The learned single Judge has found that even if workman did not raise any grievance about it, the High Court cannot ignore the ground reality. 21. The learned single Judge was dealing with the matter in writ jurisdiction and, as such, while recording a finding of fact, need of grant of opportunity to other side to bring proper facts on record, in rebuttal, ought to have been first looked into. As inability to understand English language was not the case of workman before Industrial Court, the appellant- employer did not get any opportunity to show otherwise or to bring on record the steps taken by it. Thus, lack of knowledge of English is not a plain and simple question of law of which cognizance can be taken for the first time in writ jurisdiction. It is absolutely a question of fact and hence this appreciation and application of mind is unsustainable. In any case, when misconduct is proved by leading evidence before Industrial Court where workman was represented by an Advocate, this “language” factor was not material at all. 22. It has then looked into the charge of use of filthy language and abuses hurled by workman at Project Officer. It found that in absence of any charge regarding filthy language in charge-sheet, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of that charge. It therefore found that only for abusing the Project Officer or misbehaving with Project Officer, punishment of dismissal could not have been inflicted. It has scanned the evidence of three witnesses, namely, S/Shri Barve, Khond and Kashyap. It found that their affidavit- evidence mentioned actual filthy language (abuses) in identical words i.e. in same manner without missing single word or its sequence. It has then also found that “in earlier affidavits of S/Shri Khond and Kashyap which were not present on 16.12.2007, there was no mention about filthy abuses.” It has found that those abuses given on 6.2.1984 were being brought on record on 20.9.2007 and 15.11.2007 i.e. almost after 15 years and appeared to be exaggeration. Its consideration in paragraph 11 shows that while separating chaff from grain, the only evidence of Shri Kishor Barve could have been relied upon. The said evidence reveals workman entering the chamber of Shri Barve on 6.2.1984, asking him to pay Rs. Its consideration in paragraph 11 shows that while separating chaff from grain, the only evidence of Shri Kishor Barve could have been relied upon. The said evidence reveals workman entering the chamber of Shri Barve on 6.2.1984, asking him to pay Rs. 2000/- as advance and threat that if amount is not paid the workman would publish some objectionable material against Rajur Colliery or inform Police Department. The learned single Judge found that this constituted only a minor threat given in a sudden fit of anger by a labourer. Refusal by Shri Barve and threat of dire consequences was not accepted because no police complaint was lodged or then the matter was not reported to authorities immediately. The learned single Judge found that such threats were not taken seriously and punishment was, therefore, shockingly disproportionate. 23. The consideration of controversy by Industrial Court and appreciation of evidence by it, has not been commented upon. The evidence of Shri Barve has been looked into independently by learned single Judge. The Industrial Court has found that Shri Barve was the highest officer at that place and Area Manager and Sub-Manager were working under him. These Managers were dealing with administrative work of sanctioning loan etc. There was no reason for workman to go to Shri Barve's chamber and his story that he wanted to complain against the Clerk because his signature was obtained in some register, is found to be an afterthought and baseless. The learned single Judge has overlooked this important piece of evidence. The Project Officer was approached by workman and the learned single Judge accepts the story of demand of Rs. 2000/- and threat given by workman to him. This conduct has been found to be a misconduct of a minor or technical nature. In view of this finding, the learned single Judge has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Colour-Chem Limited vs. A.L. Alaspurkar, (1998) 2 SCC 192 . 24. In this case even before the learned single Judge the conduct of respondent needs to be looked into. The learned single Judge has taken note of statement made by counsel for workman on 28.8.2009 that workman earlier indulged in disturbing one and all, including the Court and, therefore, his two earlier Advocates stopped appearing for him. 24. In this case even before the learned single Judge the conduct of respondent needs to be looked into. The learned single Judge has taken note of statement made by counsel for workman on 28.8.2009 that workman earlier indulged in disturbing one and all, including the Court and, therefore, his two earlier Advocates stopped appearing for him. Those two earlier Advocates were appointed by Legal Aid and third Advocate who pointed out this aspect (Shri D.N. Kukday) was also assigned the matter through the Legal Aid only. When the matter was going before the learned single Judge and Advocate Kukday was arguing the matter workman appeared and started showing some papers to learned single Judge with raised loud voice. The learned single Judge instructed him to talk with Shri Kukday but he did not mend his ways. The Security Guard of the Court was therefore required to remove him out of Court. 25. In charge-sheet served upon the workman, earlier similar conduct also finds mention. The finding that misconduct on 6.2.1984 was of a minor nature cannot be accepted in such circumstances. The highest authority in Colliery was approached with a demand of Rs. 2000/- and threatening with publication of some adverse material against the interest of Colliery. This is nothing but an attempt to blackmail the management. 26. In this view of finding, it is apparent that above-mentioned judgment, in the case of Colour-Chem Ltd. vs. A.L. Alaspurkar (supra) cannot have any application in present facts. This ruling applies when the misconduct is of minor nature and for it a shockingly disproportionate punishment is inflicted without considering past service record. Ingredients of this entry require a look into relevant discipline and appeal rules to find out categorization of misconduct, into major and minor one. There is no such attempt in impugned judgment. 27. Workman claims that order of punishment served upon him on 11.7.1984 was taken back and he continued in service till 1989. He also claims that he learnt about earlier dismissal in 1989. The claims are mutually inconsistent. He has not proved these facts and also reference to respondent no. 2-Tribunal and material on record, militates with this claim. 28. Taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that learned Industrial Court which has recorded the evidence of witnesses in support of misconduct, was justified in holding that misconduct has been established. 29. He has not proved these facts and also reference to respondent no. 2-Tribunal and material on record, militates with this claim. 28. Taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that learned Industrial Court which has recorded the evidence of witnesses in support of misconduct, was justified in holding that misconduct has been established. 29. It is therefore clear and as misconduct has been established, the order of dismissal dated 11.7.1984 gets validated. The "doctrine of relation back" applies and hence workman is not entitled to any relief. 30. Accordingly, we allow the Letters Patent Appeal. The judgment of learned single Judge dated 9.9.2009 in Writ Petition No. 3618/2008 is quashed and set aside. The award dated 21st March 2008 in Reference No. CGIT/NGP/72/2001 is hereby restored to that extent. 31. No costs.