JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the Award dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 146 of 1999, whereby and whereunder reference has been answered against the petitioner-Management and it has been held that the concerned workman-Shambai, W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages, if not superannuated, otherwise to it with all her retiral benefits due to her, were she in her service. 3. The case of the workman is that she was a permanent employee working in the capacity of wagon loader in Kusunda Colliery where she continued to work till the middle of 1976, after which she went on leave for one month due to the death of her mother in law. The concerned workman could not join for duty in time and when she came, she was not allowed to join by the Management. The reason according to the concerned workman for the Management in not accepting her joining was that an imposter going by the name of Shambai, W/o Budh Ram had been allowed by the Management to work in place of the concerned workman. An enquiry was conducted by the office of the Chief of Security, Security Headquarter, Surakasha Bhawan, Dhansar of M/s BCCL and a report dated 5.5.1995 was submitted, in which it was detected that Shambai, W/o Budh Ram, who was working, was an imposter, at which, the fake Shambai was charge sheeted and thereafter was dismissed from service. The concerned workman claims that the Management had taken all the relevant documents including identity card for conducting the enquiry but the said documents were never returned back to her. She has claimed that the Management was requested several times to accept her joining but failure on the part of the Management led the concerned workman through the Union to raise an industrial dispute. A conciliation proceeding was started but since the matter could not be settled, a failure report was sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Dhanbad, pursuant to which the matter was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. 4. A conciliation proceeding was started but since the matter could not be settled, a failure report was sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Dhanbad, pursuant to which the matter was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. 4. The Management had also filed its written statement, in which the claim of the concerned workman was denied on the ground that she was not able to prove that she is the wife of Hari Narayan Dhobi. It has further been stated therein that there is no employer employee relationship existing between the Management and the concerned workman and on such context it was prayed that the reference be answered against the concerned workman. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the concerned workman was herself an imposter and she could not prove that she was working as a wagon loader from 1971 to 1976 and that she was the wife of Hari Narayan Dhobi. It has further been submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute and the reference itself being stale, the same should have been answered in favour of the Management. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of the workman WW-1 and has submitted that she has admitted to be working since 1971 and considering the fact that her age has been given in course of her evidence as 45 years, the same itself falsifies the case of the concerned workman. Learned counsel further submits that the findings given by the learned Tribunal is itself perverse and is not based on the materials available on record and therefore this Court in its writ jurisdiction can re-appreciate the evidence and cause interference in the award since the finding itself is perverse. 6. Mr. B.K Jha, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has submitted that the concerned workman has been able to prove her case as being Shambai, W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi, who was employed as a wagon loader in the Company. It has been submitted that the delay has been sufficiently explained considering the fact that she had raised an objection with respect to an imposter namely Shambai, W/o Budh Ram, who was working in her place and which ultimately led to her dismissal from service since the Management had found such claim raised by the concerned workman to be correct. It has been submitted that the delay has been sufficiently explained considering the fact that she had raised an objection with respect to an imposter namely Shambai, W/o Budh Ram, who was working in her place and which ultimately led to her dismissal from service since the Management had found such claim raised by the concerned workman to be correct. It has further been submitted that the concerned workman on several times represented the Management for acceptance of her joining and since no response was forthcoming she was constrained to approach the Union and the dispute was referred for adjudication and therefore in such context it cannot be said that the claim of the concerned workman was stale. 7. The terms of reference, which was to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal is as follows:- “Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Area No. VI of BCCL in not providing employment to Sham Bai W/o Sri Harinarayan Dhobi, Wagon Loader of Kusunda Colliery is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 8. As per the version of the concerned workman, who has been examined as WW-1, she worked as a Wagon Loader in Kusunda Area No. VI of BCCL since 1971 and up to 1976. She has admitted to the fact that in 1976, she had gone on leave on account of the death of her mother in law and when she returned back she was refused joining by the Management. She has further stated that on account of her absence, one Khikh Bai had falsely got employment in her place. She has stated that since 1976, she was pursuing to get back her service for 3 to 4 years and thereafter the industrial dispute was raised in the year 1995. It would thus appear that there has been an unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the concerned workman to raise an industrial dispute. Admittedly, she had left her service on account of the death of her mother in law in the year 1976 and had raised the industrial dispute in the year 1995. It is not in dispute that when a dispute be considered to be stale would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a straightjacket formula in coming to a conclusion that an industrial dispute is stale. It is not in dispute that when a dispute be considered to be stale would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a straightjacket formula in coming to a conclusion that an industrial dispute is stale. Here in the present case, as has been stated above, the own version of the concerned workman discloses that after 1976, she had made attempts to secure employment for about 3 to 4 years. Even if such version is assumed to be correct, in such context also, the dispute appears to have been raised after a long lapse of 15 years. The delay in raising the dispute assumes further significance in view of the fact that an enquiry was conducted with respect to an imposter, who was subsequently charge sheeted and dismissed from service. The petitioner claims himself to be the actual Sham Bai, W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi and the dispute with respect to her being the genuine person could have been raised at the initial stage when it came to light that an imposter was already working claiming herself to be Sham Bai. The matter seemed to have reached a quietus as nothing has been stated by the concerned workman with respect to any plausible explanation regarding the inordinate delay in raising an industrial dispute. Moreover, the concerned workman had not supported her claim with any documentary proof and a simple assertion has been made that the documents including the identify card were kept by the Management. Another notable feature, which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the fact that at the time of her evidence, which was recorded on 20.7.2011, she had depicted her age to be 45 years and has claimed that she was in service since 1971. It would mean that she was perhaps around 5 years when she had joined employment, which further substantiates the contention of the Management that the concerned workman is also an imposter claiming by whatever means her service, for which she was never entitled. 9. The perversity of the Award is apparent on the face of it as the findings, which have been recorded by this Court were never considered by the learned Tribunal and in fact it appears that on the assumption that the concerned workman had worked from 1971 to 1996, the Award has been passed. 9. The perversity of the Award is apparent on the face of it as the findings, which have been recorded by this Court were never considered by the learned Tribunal and in fact it appears that on the assumption that the concerned workman had worked from 1971 to 1996, the Award has been passed. Even if it is assumed that there is a typographical error in the award with respect to the year, in which the concerned workman had left for her village but even then the perversity of the order cannot be washed off considering the factual aspects of the case. 10. In this context, it would apt to refer to the case of Gaya Din (D) through LRS. & Others Vs. Hanuman Prasad (D) Through LRS. And Others, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 501 , in which it was held that “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of the procedural irregularity. A perverse finding would be amenable to judicial scrutiny and considering the reasonings, which have been given in the award, which are based against the weight of evidence and in some cases, no evidence, the same would definitely entitle this Court while exercising its powers under the writ jurisdiction to cause interference in the impugned award. 11. Since the award itself suffers from the vice of the perversity and has not at all appreciated the stand of the Management or for that matter, the stand of the concerned workman, which is virtually based on no concrete evidence, the award in question, therefore, cannot with stand judicial scrutiny and accordingly the Award dated 28.2.2014, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad in Reference No. 146 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. This application stands allowed. Application allowed.