Delay in industrial adjudication can justify denial of relief when the objection is raised and accepted on the facts.

Delay in challenging an industrial punishment can justify denial or moulding of relief where the objection is specifically raised and accepted on the facts. The prior Supreme Court ruling relied on was treated as fact-specific because it did not lay down any general rule and the delay objection had not been raised in that proceeding. Relief in industrial adjudication was stated to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the Tribunal's discretionary decision, as affirmed by the High Court, was found not to suffer from serious illegality.

---

---

Issues: Whether relief to a workman can be denied or moulded on the ground of delay in challenging punishment orders found unsustainable for want of proper inquiry.

Analysis: The delay plea had been specifically raised before the Tribunal and accepted on the facts. The prior decision relied upon was treated as fact-specific, because no general rule was laid down there and the delay objection had not been raised in that proceeding. Relief in industrial adjudication was held to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the Tribunal's discretionary decision, as affirmed by the High Court, was found not to suffer from serious illegality.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant relief on the ground of delay was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---