THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER vs B.C.RAHUTAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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. 103240 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBLI DIVISION,
HUBLI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANGERE.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE -27.
ALL ARE R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA A/W
SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. B.C.RAHUTAR (CONDUCTOR),
C/O. GENERAL SECRETARY,
K.S.R.T.C. EMPLOYEE UNION,
HOSUR, HUBLI.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 26 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER INCLUDING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN ID.NO.152/2008 COPY OF WHICH
IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXUR-D.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner-North-West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’
for short) stands before the Court calling in question the award
dated 22.04.2013 passed in ID No.152/2008 by the Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’ for short), by which the penalty that was imposed
upon the respondent-workman of stoppage of 5 increments is
interfered with notwithstanding the fact of a workman
challenging the said workman approaching the Tribunal after 15
years of imposition of the penalty.
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. Praveen P
Tarikar for the respondent/workman.
3. The award of the Tribunal is as follows:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
This reference is made by the Government of
Karnataka under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial
Disputes' Act 1947 (in short the "Act") by its order
bearing No. KAE: 1170: IDM : 2007 dated 19.11.2007 for
adjudication of the dispute.
2. In pursuance of the reference, notices were
issued to the parties. Both parties have appeared,
engaged counsels and submitted their pleadings.
3. The brief facts of the case of the claimant are
that he is working as Conductor in the second party
management. He contended that earlier he was working in
Shimoga Depot. He has contended that a charge sheet
was issued to him alleging that on 27.6.1991 while he was
conducting the bus bearing No.4311 plying on route
Shimoga to Bangalore the said bus was checked by the
checking officials of the Second Party management at
Tipatur Control point and found that he had failed to issue
tickets to seven passengers who were traveling from
Arasikere to Tipatur despite collecting the fare amount of
Rs.4.25 each from them and he also failed to issue ticket
to one passenger who was traveling from Arasikere to
K.B.Cross despite collecting the fare amount of Rs.8.25
from him. He contended that the said ticketless
passengers boarded the bus at the outskirt of Tipatur
village and due to fear of the checking officials handing
over them to the police they stated that they have paid
the fare amount. He contended that he had issued tickets
to all the passengers and he had not committed any
irregularities as alleged in the articles of charge. He
contended that the checking officials issued the offence
memo on the spot. He contended that earlier the
Divisional Controller, Davanagere after verifying the
records and evidence passed the punishment order by
reducing his basic pay by three incremental stages. He
contended that the then Regional Manager being of the
opinion that the case warrants major punishment and
issued a review notice and conducted a farce enquiry. He
contended that the Regional Manager/ Disciplinary
Authority has violated Regulations of C & D regulations
and without giving proper opportunity to the first party
passed the impugned order of punishment which is illegal
and liable to be set aside. He contended that being
aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment preferred
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
an appeal before the Managing Director.
4. Respondent No.1 filed its counter statement
stating that the claimant challenged the punishment order
passed by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC Davanagere
dated 28.3.1992 and subsequently confirmed by the
Regional Manager by its order dated 14.10.1993. It is
contended that this Respondent has not passed any order
of punishment against the first party workman and hence
the dispute raised against this Respondent is not at all
maintainable and hence requested to reject the reference
against the first Respondent.
5. The brief facts of the case of the respondent No.2
are that the entire averments made in the claim statement
are false and baseless. The management in the statement
of objections while almost reiterating the charge levelled
against the workman and also the impugned order of
punishment has justified the order of punishment. It is
contended that there is in ordinate delay in raising the
dispute. It is further contended that there are no grounds
to interfere with the impugned order of punishment and
hence the claimant is not entitled for any relief.
6. With the above set of facts the following
issues are framed:
1. Whether the order bearing No KST: HBL : RM:
DFL-REV: DVG: 23(92): 1464 dated
14.10.1993 of the Regional Manager and
Revision Authority, KSRTC, Hubli Region,
Hubli reducing five increment of the first party
workman with cumulative effect is legal and
justified?
2. Whether the workman is not entitled to the
relief in view of the delay in raising the
dispute?
3. What order?
Additional issue:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the
management against the workman is fair and
proper?
7. Additional Issue No.1 has been treated as
preliminary issue. On behalf of the Second Party
management one witness by name Ganeshappa, EST.
Superintendent has been examined as M.W.1 touching
additional issue No.1 and got marked the Xerox copy of
the GSO. 250 dated 8.6.1978 as per Ex.M.1. The first
party workman also has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence on this additional issue No.1. Since
both parties have not produced any oral and documentary
evidence touching additional issue No.1, this Tribunal has
no other alternative except to hold that the domestic
enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and accordingly
on 10.4.2013 I answered additional issue No.1 in the
negative.
8. In so far as issue Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned,
the first party workman himself got examined as W.W.1
and got marked the articles of charge as per Ex.W.1, copy
of the reply to the articles of charge as per Ex.W.2 and
reply to the offence memo as per Ex.W.3. The first party
workman has also produced the Xerox copy of the
impugned order of punishment but the same is not marked
as exhibits. The Second Party management despite
granting sufficient opportunity has not evinced interest to
adduce any oral or documentary evidence on merits of the
case.
9. Heard the arguments from both the sides.
10. My findings on issue Nos. 1 to 3 :
Issue No.1: In the negative
Issue No.2 In the negative.
Issue No.3: As per the order below
for the following:
REASONS
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
11. Issue Nos. 1 and 2: For the sake of
convenience and in order to avoid repetition of discussion I
have chosen to discuss issue Nos. 1 and 2 together.
12. W.W.1 in his affidavit in lieu of examination-
in-chief has reiterated the averment made in the claim
statement. He in his cross-examination states that he
knows the issue and start rules. He admits the suggestion
that as per the circular whenever the passengers boarded
the bus they have to issue tickets and then start the bus.
He states that he had preferred an appeal before the
Managing Director, but he does not know whether it is still
pending or not. He states that the passengers were
traveling from Arasikere to Tipatur. He denies the
suggestion that the reply produced by him before the court
is not the reply given by him to the department, but he
had created the documents and produced before this court
for the first time. He admits the suggestion that he had
involved in several cases and he was imposed with minor
punishments.
13. The first party workman has not disputed the
checking of the bus on 27.6.1991 by the checking officials.
The first party workman has produced the articles of
charge at Ex.W.1, his reply against articles of charge at
Ex. W.2 and his reply to the offence memo at Ex.W.3. The
first party workman in his reply at Exs.W.2 and W.3 has
stated that on 27.6.1991 at about 1.00 a.m. his bus was
checked in between Tipatur and Iyanabavi and at that time
there were 62 passengers in the bus and he was in the
process of issuing tickets who were travelling from Tipatur
to Arasikere, but those passengers demanded him to stop
the bus at Bidregudi corss, but he refused to stop the bus
because of non-stop bus and while this dispute was going
on the checking officials boarded the bus and checked and
booked a case of NIAC. Admittedly the Second Party
management has not examined the Reporter before this
Tribunal to prove the allegations made against the first
party workman. In the absence of cogent and convincing
evidence on record by the second party management the
contention of the first party workman as stated in his reply
at Exs.W.2 and W.3 has to be accepted and an adverse
inference has to be drawn against the second party
management holding that the checking officials checked
the bus while the first party workman was in the process
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
of issuing tickets. The learned counsel Smt.
A.V.Shiriyannavar during the course of her arguments has
contended that there is a rule issue and start, but the first
party workman has failed to follow the said rule. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for the first party
workman Miss Kalpana T.M. during her arguments has
contended that though there is circular regarding the rule
issue and start, but, in the circumstances in which the first
party workman was stood i.e during the night hours that
too on the way the first party workman could not follow
the said rule issue and start. The said contention of the
learned counsel for the first party cannot be ruled out.
M.W.1 in his evidence before this Tribunal has clearly
deposed that the documents pertaining to this case are not
available and as per GSO 250 dated 8.6.1978 which is at
Ex.M.1 they preserved the default case documents only for
a period of five years. But on perusal of Counter statement
filed by the second Respondent ie. Divisional Controller,
KSRTC Davanagere would show that at para 6 of the
counter statement the second Respondent has clearly and
specifically mentioned irregularities alleged to have been
committed by the first party workman. The second
Respondent in its counter statement at para 6 has
specifically stated about imposing of minor punishment by
the Disciplinary Authority. The Second Respondent in the
same para has specifically contended that being not
satisfied with that order, issued Revision memo to initiate
enquiry proceedings and also contended that the Revision
Authority himself conducted the enquiry. In the said para
it is further contended that the Revision Authority
submitted his finding holding the first party claimant is
guilty of charges. M.W.1 in his affidavit in lieu of
examination-in- chief has clearly stated that in view of the
long delay in raising the dispute the documents pertaining
to this case are not available. M.W.1 has not made it clear
as to when the records of this case were destroyed. The
second Respondent has also not made it clear on what
basis the second Respondent prepared the written
statement by mentioning in detail about the misconduct
alleged to have been committed by the first party
workman and enquiry conducted by the Regional Authority
and the order passed by the Regional Authority. On
perusal of counter statement would show that the second
Respondent on the basis of records itself prepared the
counter statement in detail. Therefore the contention of
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
M.W.1 that the first party workman raised the dispute
after a long gap and hence records were not available with
the second party management and as per GSO at Ex.M.1
the records pertaining to this case are destroyed etc
cannot be accepted and an adverse inference has to be
drawn against the second party management holding that
with a malafide intention the second party management
has not produced the documents though the documents in
respect of this case are in its custody. Apart from this,
though the domestic enquiry conducted is held not fair and
proper but the second party management has not chosen
to examine the said checking staff before this Tribunal to
prove the misconduct alleged against the first party
workman. Therefore, the non examination of the Reporter
before this Tribunal is fatal to the case of the second party
management. Therefore in the absence of cogent and
convincing evidence on I hold that the second party
management has failed to prove the misconduct alleged
against the first party workman and accordingly. I hold
that the misconduct attributed against the first party
workman stands not proved.
14. Admittedly domestic enquiry conducted in this
case is held not fair and proper. When additional issue
No.1 is answered in the negative, the burden is on the
management to justify the impugned order of punishment.
The second party management has not produced any
cogent and convincing materials to show that the
impugned order of punishment is legal and justified.
Therefore, in view of these reasons I hold that the
impugned order of punishment is illegal and unjust and it
is liable to be set aside.
15. In so far as delay in raising the dispute is
concerned, it is the contention of the first party workman
that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Divisional Controller,
Davanagere on the basis of records imposed the
punishment reducing three incremental stages and
thereafter the Regional Manager being not satisfied with
the order of the Disciplinary Authority/ the Divisional
Controller, Davanagere, after conducting farce enquiry,
passed the impugned order of punishment reducing five
incremental stages of the first party workman. It is his
further contention that being aggrieved by the impugned
order of punishment he preferred an appeal before the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
Managing Director and since he had not received anything
from the Appellate Authority, he approached the Union and
the Union raised the Industrial Dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and since the conciliation ended in
failure the Government referred the dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication and thus there is some delay in
raising the dispute and hence he requested to condone the
delay. The Second Party management has not disputed the
said contention of the first party workman. Apart from
this, in the decisions in (1) Karan Singh Versus Executive
Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board reported in
2008-I-LLJ page 239 and (2) Kuldeep Singh Versus G.M.
Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and
Another reported in 2011-1- LLJ page 615 our Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down law that delay in raising the
dispute will not invalidate the reference. Therefore, on the
ground of delay reference will not become invalidate.
Therefore merely on the ground of delay the admissible
relief cannot be denied.
16. Since the management has not established
the alleged misconduct, it has to be held that the
impugned order of punishment cannot sustain. Since the
impugned order of punishment is not sustainable, the
workman is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, I
answer Issue Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated above.
17. Issue No.3 : In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Reference bearing No. Ka.E.: 1170: IDM :
2007 dated 19.11.2007 under section 10(1)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under
Secretary attached to the Department of Labour,
Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby
allowed. The impugned order of punishment bearing
No. KST: HBL : RM: DFL : REV: DVG-23(92): 1464
dated 14.10.1993 of the Regional Manager/Revision
Authority, KSRTC Hubli Regional, Hubli reducing the
basic pay of the workman by five incremental stages
with cumulative effect is hereby set aside. The
workman is entitled to the monetary benefits which
are denied consequent upon the impugned order of
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
punishment. The management shall work out the
admissible monetary benefits which are denied
consequent upon the impugned order of punishment
and extend the admissible monetary benefits to the
workman without any interest within six months
from the date of publication of this award.
In the circumstances, I direct the parties to
bear their own costs.
Respondents 1 to 3 shall comply the terms of
award.
Copy of this award be sent to the Government
for publication as contemplated under section 17-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. ”
4. There is no reason rendered by the Tribunal for
condoning the delay of 15 years, which on the face of it was
uncondonable. The issue as to whether the delay could be
condoned is completely answered by the judgment of this Court
in WP No.19195/2015 c/w WP No.12250/2019, dated
30.12.2020, wherein it has held as under:
“ 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.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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.
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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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:
“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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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 : 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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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 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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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 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
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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 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
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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.
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.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
c. The writ petition No.12250/2019 filed by the
Workman is dismissed.
d. The order of penalty dated 31.12.2003,
impugned stands restored.
”
5. The afore-quoted judgment was confirmed by the
Division Bench in WA No.341/2021 c/w WA No.330/2021 by its
judgment dated 03.07.2025. The Division Bench has observed
as under:
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
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
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
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
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17887
WP No. 103240 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020002832014
find any error or illegality in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeals stand
rejected. ”
6. In terms of the afore-extracted judgment of this
Court, which was confirmed by the Division Bench supra, and
the fact that there was no reason assigned by the Tribunal in
condoning the delay in raising the dispute by the workman, the
dispute itself was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Since
the dispute itself is not maintainable on account of the delay,
no other ground urged by the workman need be considered.
Thus, the writ petition filed by the Corporation succeeds.
7. In light of the above, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed ;
ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal dated
22.04.2013 passed in ID No.152/2008 is
set-aside.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JTR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29