THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC vs SRI BADRESH S/O YALLAPPA HALAGALI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.104277 OF 2025 (L-ID)


BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC,
BAGALKOTE DIVISION BAGALKOTE,
NOW R/BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 030.






…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA A/W
SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)


AND:

SRI. BADRESH
S/O. YALLAPPA HALAGALI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ASST.
R/O: C/O: S.H. TOKALAVAR,
POST, ADAGAL TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 201.







Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN ID
NO.553/2018 DATED 10.09.2024 BY PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE E IN THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner-North-West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’
for short) stands before this Court calling in question an award
passed in ID No.553/2018 dated 10.09.2024 by the District
Judge and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), by which the
penalty that was imposed upon the respondent/workman of
stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is set-
aside and all benefits are directed to be granted to the
respondent/workman.


2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. H.R. Renuka along
with learned counsel Sri. Rohit S Patil appearing for the
petitioner/Corporation and learned counsel Sri. S.K. Hegde for
the respondent/workman.


3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation
submits that the workman had raised the dispute 7 years after
imposition of the said penalty and the delay by the corporation
and a delay by the property in approaching the Court has been
condoned by the Tribunal on erroneous reasons. The learned

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

counsel would seek to place reliance upon the judgment
rendered by this Court as is affirmed by the Division Bench.


4. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/workman would, however, refute the submission in
contending that there is no delay of 7 years as is contended,
but the reason was that the workman was not aware that he
could raise a challenge to the penalty of stoppage of one
increment as well.

5. In the light of the said submission and contra
submission, the issue is whether there has been delay in
raising the dispute by the workman, particularly, in a case
where the penalty is stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect.


6. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of a
Coordinate Bench in WP No.78117 of 2013, which also had
considered the delay of 6 years and condoned the same by the
following order:
“ 5. From the perusal of the material on record
it is seen that the Corporation had produced the
documents before the enquiry officer, which were not
related or concerned to the charges that were made
against the respondent – workman. It is material to
note here that issue No.1 regarding holding of domestic

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

enquiry in a fair and proper manner was answered
against the Corporation. Despite opportunity given to
the Corporation, the relevant documents concerning the
charges were not produced by the Corporation. Learned
counsel for the Corporation has therefore sought to
challenge the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal
principally on the ground of delay in seeking the
reference. The judgment in the case of Assistant
Engineer, C.A.D. Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar (Supra) on
which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation was rendered having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case
and the same cannot be made applicable to the present
case. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had noted that so far as the delay in seeking reference
is concerned no formula of universal application can be
laid down and it would depend upon each individual
case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan
Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State
Marketing Board reported in 2008 I LLJ 289 and in
the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument
Design Development and facilities Center and
another reported in 2011 I LLJ 615 had held that the
delay in raising a dispute / reference should not be a
ground for denial of relief to the respondent – workman.
In the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument
Design Development and facilities Center and
another (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:
"The reference sought for by the
workman cannot be said to be delayed for
suffering from a lapse when law does not
prescribe any period of limitation for raising
a dispute under Section 10 of the Act. The
real test for making a reference is whether
at the time of the reference dispute exists
or not and when it is made it is presumed
that the State Government is satisfied with
the ingredients of the provision, hence, the
Labour Court cannot go behind the
reference."

6. In the present case, the material on record
would go to show that the finding of the enquiry officer
was not based on any acceptable evidence. Under the
circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition
does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
”

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025


6. However, this Court in terms of its order dated
30.12.2020 in WP No.19195 of 2015 c/w WP No.12250 of
2019, insofar as delay by the workman in raising the dispute,
particularly, if the imposition of penalty is one of stoppage of
increments or reversion to a particular scale, has held as
follows:
5. This incident resulted in issuance of a
“
charge sheet dated 27.10.1999, against the petitioner
for rash and negligent driving on 17.06.1999. Pursuant
to the conduct of enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry
Officer held the petitioner guilty of the allegations
levelled in the charge sheet after which the Disciplinary
Authority considering the report of the Enquiry Officer
and the reply submitted by the Workman, imposed the
penalty of reduction of the grade of the Workman from
selection grade to the minimum scale of a driver with
cumulative effect, by his order dated 31.12.2003.

6. The Workman raised an industrial dispute
in the year 2012, against the imposition of the penalty
on the reference made by appropriate government in
reference No.11/2012 under Section 10(1A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the said Act’ for short). The Tribunal held the enquiry to
be fair and proper considering it as a preliminary issue
and in terms of Section 11A of the said Act, held that
the charges were not proved and set aside the order of
punishment by its award dated 28.05.2014. The
Tribunal further directed the Workman to be entitled to
all other benefits except backwages. The writ petition
No.19195/2015 is filed by the Corporation challenging
the said award, writ petition No.12250/2019 is filed by
the workman claiming backwages.

7. Heard Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation and Sri V. Padmanabha
Kedilaya, learned Counsel for the Workman.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025


8. Learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation would contend that the Tribunal has grossly
erred in allowing the reference by setting aside the
penalty notwithstanding the fact that the charges
against the Workman was proved and the fact that the
dispute itself was raised after 9 years of the imposition
of the penalty.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
Workman would contend that the delay should not
defeat justice as the Workman has been victimized by
the Corporation and it is on that ground, the Tribunal
interfered with the findings and set aside the order of
penalty and would submit that the writ petition filed by
the Corporation be dismissed as it is one of the prayers
made in the writ petition filed by the Workman.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.

11. The undisputed facts are, the Workman
while driving bus bearing registration No. KA-13-F-670,
plying from Ramanathpura to Bangalore, when the bus
reached the Government Hospital at Kunigal, dashed
against a pedestrian who died due to the injuries
sustained on account of the impact of the accident and
pursuant to certain domestic enquiry, imposed penalty
of reduction from selection grade to minimum scale of
driver with cumulative effect by an order of penalty
dated 31.12.2003. The dispute that was raised by the
Workman before the Conciliation Officer was on
31.01.2012, after about 9 years of the imposition of the
penalty against the Workman.

12. In the entire claim petition, there is no
whisper about any explanation by the Workman for the
inordinate delay of 9 years in raising the dispute. The
Tribunal also accepts and records that there is no
explanation for the delay in raising the dispute.
Answering the plea of delay raised by the Corporation,
at paragraph No.19, the Tribunal holds as follows:

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

“19. In his Claim Statement, the First Party
has contended that due to unfair labour practice
and victimization attitude of the Second Party, he
or the Union could not raise the dispute earlier.
But, he has not explained as to how and in what
manner, the Second Party was following unfair
labour practice and victimization attitude against
him, which prevented him or the Union from
raising the dispute without delay. The First Party
has not come forward to produce any evidence to
substantiate his contention. In the absence of
such evidence and explanation of the First
Party as to how and in what manner the
Second Party was following unfair labour
practice and victimization attitude against
him, it is not fit to accept his bare contention
that because of unfair labour practice and
victimization attitude, he could not raise the
dispute earlier. There is no other explanation
on behalf of the First Party about the said
inordinate delay. As such, it is not proper to
ignore the said inordinate delay of 7 years
on the part of the First Party in raising the
dispute. However, as observed above, the
said delay has not caused any prejudice to
the Second Party.”

(emphasis supplied)

The afore-extracted finding of the Tribunal clearly
indicates that there was no explanation given by the
Workman for the delay in raising the dispute or any
factor that presented him at any point of time in those 9
years to raise the dispute. The Apex Court in the case of
U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS.
BABU RAM reported in (2006) 5 SCC 433, wherein it
has held as follows:

“7. So far as delay in seeking the reference
is concerned, no formula of universal application
can be laid down. It would depend on facts of
each individual case.
8. However, certain observations made by
this Court need to be noted. In Nedungadi Bank
Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty [(2000) 2 SCC 455 :

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

2000 SCC (L&S) 283 : AIR 2000 SC 839] it was
noted at para 6 as follows: (SCC pp. 459-60)
“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 a lapse of about seven years of
the 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 an industrial dispute
was ex facie bad and incompetent.”

9. In S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District
Manager [(2003) 4 SCC 27 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
380] the position was reiterated as follows (at
SCC pp. 39-40, para 17):

“17. It was submitted on behalf of
the respondent that on account of delay in

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

raising the dispute by the appellants the
High Court was justified in denying relief to
the appellants. We cannot agree. It is true,
as held in Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Workmen
[(1960) 1 SCR 150 : AIR 1959 SC 1217]
that merely because the Industrial Disputes
Act does not provide for a limitation for
raising the dispute, it does not mean that
the dispute can be raised at any time and
without regard to the delay and reasons
therefor. There is no limitation prescribed
for reference of disputes to an Industrial
Tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that
the disputes should be referred as soon as
possible after they have arisen and after
conciliation proceedings have failed,
particularly so when disputes relate to
discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of
4 years in raising the dispute after even re-
employment of most of the old workmen
was held to be fatal in Shalimar Works Ltd.
v. Workmen [(1960) 1 SCR 150 : AIR 1959
SC 1217] . In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P.
Madhavankutty [(2000) 2 SCC 455 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 283 : AIR 2000 SC 839] a delay
of 7 years was held to be fatal and
disentitled the workmen to any relief. In
Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. Union of India
[1993 Supp (4) SCC 67 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
182 : (1994) 26 ATC 228 : 1993 AIR SCW
2214] it was held that a casual labourer
retrenched by the employer deprives
himself of remedy available in law by delay
itself; lapse of time results in losing the
remedy and the right as well. The delay
would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in
material evidence relevant to adjudication
being lost and rendered not available.
However, we do not think that the delay in
the case at hand has been so culpable as to
disentitle the appellants to any relief.
Although the High Court has opined that
there was a delay of 7 to 9 years in raising
the dispute before the Tribunal but we find
the High Court factually not correct. The

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

employment of the appellants was
terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-
87. Pursuant to the judgment in Daily
Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India
[(1988) 1 SCC 122 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 138 :
(1987) 5 ATC 228 : AIR 1987 SC 2342] the
Department was formulating a scheme to
accommodate casual labourers and the
appellants were justified in awaiting the
outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were
refused to be accommodated in the
Scheme. On 28- 12-1990 they initiated the
proceedings under the Industrial Disputes
Act followed by conciliation proceedings and
then the dispute was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. We
do not think that the appellants deserve to
be non-suited on the ground of delay.”

The above position was highlighted recently
in Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Workmen [(2006) 2 SCC 329 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
306 : (2006) 1 Supreme 282] .

10. It is to be noted that the High Court
has very cryptically disposed of the writ petition.
The workman has not placed any material to
show that he had raised dispute within a
reasonable time, and/or that he was not
responsible for delayed decision, if any, in the
conciliation proceedings. It was for him to show
that the dispute was raised within a reasonable
time and that he was not responsible for any
delay. The High Court, on a hypothetical basis has
assumed that the dispute might have been raised
promptly but delayed by the State Government
and he cannot be penalised for delay in finalising
the conciliation proceedings and the reference.
But neither the Labour Court nor the High Court
has even noted the factual position. The
conclusion was based on surmises and
conjectures.”

The aforestated judgment of the Apex Court is
followed by this Court in plethora of judgments. In

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

terms of the aforeextracted judgment of the Apex Court
and the fact that there was no explanation for the delay
in raising the dispute, the dispute itself was not
maintainable before the Tribunal.

13. The penalty that is imposed on the
Workman is that of reduction to the minimum scale in
the post of driver from selection grade, as a result of
which the Workman would be getting lesser pay every
month, on every salary date. This would be a reminder
to the Workman every month with regard to the penalty
that is imposed. Therefore, having kept quiet for 9 years
could not have raised a dispute later. A CoOrdinate
Bench of this Court in Writ petition No.34254/2016
disposed on 21.10.2016, at paragraph Nos.6 to 8 has
held as follows:

“6. Punishment order was passed on
04.08.1994. The reference was made on
23.08.2004 to the Tribunal. Though the reference
upon adjudication was rejected on 03.08.2008
and certified copy became available on
30.08.2008 itself, this petition was filed after
more than eight years period. The petitioner
having been imposed with the punishment of
reduction by two incremental stages could not
have kept quite for long period i.e., to raise the
dispute and seek reference to the Industrial
Tribunal. There is delay of about 10 years in the
matter of making the reference. Even after the
reference was rejected, there is delay of more
than eight years in filing this writ petition.

7. In STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &
ORS VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL & ORS, 1986 (4) SCC
566, it has been held that the High Court in
exercising of its discretion does not ordinarily
assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further
held that, if there is delay on the part of the
petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily
explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

8. In the present case, there is
inordinate delay in filing. Writ jurisdiction cannot
be permitted to be invoked after the lapse of
more than seven years from the date the
reference was rejected by the Tribunal. The
averments made in para 3 of the writ petition for
ignoring of the delay is bald. The delay being
inordinate has not been satisfactorily explained.
The petitioner having suffered the punishment
dated 04.08.1994 and the punishment order
being that of reduction of two increments
permanently, on every salary date the petitioner
was remained of the said punishment. Despite
such a situation, the petitioner has not shown any
eagerness even in knowing the stage of the case
by approaching the Tribunal. The averments
made in para 3 of the petition being bald and
make believe, the inordinate delay and laches
cannot be condoned.”

In terms of the afore-extracted judgment, the very
dispute was not maintainable before the Tribunal on
account of sheer delay which was unexplained by the
Workman in raising the dispute. Since the dispute itself
is not maintainable on account of the delay, no other
ground urged by the Workman need be considered. The
award of the Tribunal setting aside the order of
punishment and giving consequential directions would
all be rendered contrary to law. 14. The writ petition
filed by the Workman seeking backwages and other
benefits deserves to be dismissed on account of the
findings rendered hereinabove. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

a. The writ petition No.19195/2015 filed by
the Corporation is allowed.

b. The order dated 28.05.2014, of the
Tribunal is
quashed.

c. The writ petition No.12250/2019 filed by
the Workman is dismissed.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

d. The order of penalty dated 31.12.2003,
impugned stands restored. ”

7. The above order was challenged in WA No.341 of
2021 c/w WA No.330 of 2021. The Division Bench in terms of
its judgment dated 03.07.2025 affirming the order passed by
this Court has held as follows:
“ 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the learned Single Judge was not right in
allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent - KSRTC
and in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. It
is submitted that the action of the respondent - KSRTC
imposing penalty was by practicing unfair labour practice
and the punishment imposed is excessive when compared
to the gravity and nature of charge. Learned counsel
would submit that the learned Single Judge without
appreciating the fact that the appellant approached the
Industrial Tribunal subsequent to acquittal in criminal
case in the year 2007, allowed the Writ Petition of KSRTC
on the ground that there was delay on the part of
workman in raising dispute. It is submitted that there was
no delay of 9 years as observed by the learned Single
Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant would pray for
allowing the writ appeals.

6. Per contra, Smt. Renuka, learned counsel for
the respondent - KSRTC supports the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and submits that the appellant -
workmen on imposition of penalty on 31.12.2003 filed
appeal which was rejected on 30.11.2004. The appellant
was expected to seek reference within a reasonable time
but more than 7 years after, he sought reference.
Further, learned counsel would submit that there is no
explanation for more than 7 years delay in approaching
the Industrial Tribunal. In the absence of any explanation,
learned counsel would submit that the learned Single
Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition and in
dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. In that regard,
learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025

Transport Corporation vs. Babu Ram reported in
(2006) 5 SCC 433.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers,
the only point that would arise for our consideration is as
follows:-

1. Whether the impugned order requires
interference at the hands of this Court?

8. The answer to the above point would be in
‘Negative’ for the following reasons:-

Admittedly, under order dated 31.12.2003, the
appellant was imposed punishment of reduction of pay
from selection grade to basic pay. Appeal filed against the
said order of punishment was also rejected on
30.11.2004. Appellant was expected to approach the
Industrial Tribunal by getting reference within a
reasonable time. But the appellant approached the
Industrial Tribunal only on 30.01.2012 after more than 7
years from the date of rejection of his appeal against the
order of punishment. In his claim statement or before the
learned Single Judge, the appellant has not stated
anything or explained the delay of 7 years in approaching
the Industrial Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court, which the
learned Single Judge has also referred, in Babu Ram’s
case (supra) held that, it is for the workmen by placing
material on record to show that he had raised dispute
within a reasonable time and that he was not responsible
for delayed reference.

9. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the
punishment affected the salary and allowances of the
appellant and the workmen was reminded of the
punishment every month when he received lesser salary.
When appellant reminded of punishment every month, he
failed to challenge the order of punishment within a
reasonable time. A person sleeps over his right would not
be entitled for any relief under writ jurisdiction. We do not
find any error or illegality in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeals stand
rejected.
”

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17885
WP No. 104277 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132032025


8. In the light of the Division Bench judgment supra,
which affirms the order of this Court, the judgment rendered
by the learned counsel for the respondent of the learned Single
Judge could not become applicable as the penalty that is
imposed is stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect
and the dispute is admittedly raised after 7 years. In that light,
the Tribunal has fallen in error allowing the application filed by
the respondent/workman, which warrants interference at the
hands of this Court.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is allowed ;

ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal
passed in ID No.553/2018 dated
10.09.2024 stands set-aside.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22