THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC vs RAMESH S/O LINGO KULKARNI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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.107926 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI,
R/BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI,
R/BY C.L.O. NWKRTC,
GOKUL ROAD, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA A/W
SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. RAMESH S/O. LINGO KULKARNI ,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O: DESAI GALLI, HAVERI
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED
20.08.2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN ID NO.67/2011. THE COPY OF WHICH HAS
BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
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
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner-North-West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’
for short) is before the Court calling in question the award
dated 20.08.2013 passed in ID No.67/2011 by the Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’ for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. H.R.Renuka along
with learned counsel Sri.Prashant Hosmani appearing for the
petitioner/Corporation and learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde for
the respondent/workman.
3. The respondent/workman approaches the Tribunal
challenging the penalty that was imposed 16 years prior to
such institution of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal in ID No.67/2011 condones the delay of 16 years of
raising a challenge. The award of the Tribunal is as follows:
9. Issue No. 1:. In so far as delay in raising the
“
dispute is concerned, it is the contention of the first party
workman that being aggrieved by the impugned order of
punishment he approached the KSRTC Staff and Workers
Union and submitted a representation and thereafter Union
has raised the dispute before the Deputy Labour
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Belgaum and the
Conciliation proceedings were ended in failure and hence
Government referred this dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication and thus he requested to condone the delay.
The Second Party management has not disputed the said
fact. Apart from this, in the decisions in (1) Karan Singh
Versus Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board
reported in 2008-I-LLJ page 289 and (2) Kuldeep Singh
Versus G.M.Instrument Design Development and Facilities
Centre and Another reported in 2011-ILLJ 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. Thus I answer issue
No.1 as indicated above.
10. Issue No.2 : W.W.1 in his affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief has reiterated the averments made in
the claim statement. He in his cross-examination has
stated that he is serving in the Respondent Corporation
from the last 25 years and he knows the rules regarding
issue and start. He has stated that on 9.12.1994 he was on
duty as conductor in the bus bearing No. KA-25/F-433
plying on route of Nandineeralagi to Haveri. He has stated
that the checking officials checked the bus at Karajagi
stage No.3. He denies the suggestion that on the date of
check there were 31+3+3 passengers in the bus. He
admits the issuance of offence memo, recovery of fine
amount from the group leader, issuance of charge sheet
and submission of reply by him against the articles of
charge. He has stated that no departmental enquiry was
conducted in this case. He denies the suggestion that that
he has falsely stated in his affidavit that the checking
Inspector have forced six ticketless passengers to pay the
penalty amount and he has falsely stated that six
passengers were lost the tickets.
11. M.W.1 in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
chief has reiterated the averments made in the objection
statement filed by respondent No.1. He has stated that the
dispute is old one, despite diligent search, documents are
not traced out. He has contended that as per GSO No.250
dated 8.6.1978 the documents in respect of this case are
not required to keep beyond five years. He in his cross-
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
examination has stated that he has not produced any
documents to show that the documents pertaining to this
case have been destroyed as per circular. He admits the
suggestion that his counsel filed the objections to the claim
petition regarding the facts of the case. He states that he
does not know whether their department has made any
efforts to secure the presence of S.K.Hiremath and
T.N.Sureban who were working as Traffic Inspectors to
adduce evidence before this Tribunal. He has stated that he
does not know about the circular that the unpunched
tickets amount will be collected from the conductor.
12. The first party workman has not disputed the
checking of the bus by the checking officials and the
presence of six ticketless passengers in the bus at the time
of checking. But, it is his contention in his affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief as well as in his reply against the
articles of charge at Ex.W.2 that there were 25+03+00
passengers in the bus and he had issued tickets to all the
passengers and a group leader of said six passengers lost
their tickets and hence unable to produce the tickets before
the checking officials. M.W.1 in his affidavit in lieu of
examination-inchief has contended that the punishment
order is old one, despite diligent search the documents are
not traced out. In support of his contention he has
produced one zerox copy of the Circular No.1450 dated
21.9.2011. On perusal of Ex.M.1 would show that the
management has preserved the records in respect of the
dispute of this nature only for a period of five to ten years.
Admittedly the dispute is of the year 1995 and the
workman has raised the dispute after lapse of long period
and therefore the management cannot be expected to
produce the documents. The first party workman has
produced the copy of the articles of charge at Ex.W.1 and
copy of his reply at Ex.W.2. The first party workman in his
reply at Ex.W.2 as well as in his affidavit in lieu of
examination-inchief has stated that there were 25+03+00
passengers travelling in the bus and he had issued tickets
to all the passengers and hence he has not committed any
misconduct as alleged. On the contrary, though the first
party workman in his claim statement at para 3 at the first
instance stated that there were in all 25+03+00
passengers in the bus, he issued tickets to all the
passengers and entered the same in the waybill and during
the course of checking six passengers failed to show their
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
tickets to the checking officials, but at the very next
instance he has stated that the bus was over crowded and
one passenger without the knowledge of the first party
workman was sitting in the bus without purchasing the
ticket and the said fact came to his knowledge only at the
time of checking of the bus by the checking officials and the
checking officials forced those six passengers to pay the
penalty amount as they lost the tickets. So, from the very
contention taken by the first party workman in his claim
statement it is clear that the first party workman had failed
to issue tickets to six passengers and failed to collect the
fare amount from the said passengers and thus the said
passengers paid the penalty amount. From the very
contention taken by the first party workman in his claim
statement it is clear that he has not followed the rule of
issue and start. Though the Second Party management has
not produced any documents and though the Second Party
management has not examined any of the reporters of this
case before this Tribunal but the very contention taken by
the first party workman in his claim statement itself would
suffice to say that the first party workman had committed
the irregularities as alleged in the articles of charge. Apart
from this, the first party workman also admits the payment
of penalty amount by the said passengers and obtaining of
unpunched tickets and issuance of offence memo on the
spot by the checking officials. He also admits the passing of
remarks in the waybill. Therefore, the non production of
any documents and non examination of the reporters
before this Tribunal will not fatal to the case of the Second
Party management since the very contention of the first
party workman taken in his claim statement itself as
referred above would establish the alleged misconduct
against the first party workman. Thus, I hold that the
misconduct attributed against the first party workman
stands proved.
13. Since the misconduct stands established, the
question now poses for consideration is whether the
punishment imposed by the second party management is
legal and justified. The Disciplinary Authority by passing the
impugned order of punishment has reduced one annual
incremental stage of the first party workman permanently.
The Second Respondent in its counter statement has clearly
stated that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the
reporters report, Reply of the first party workman and also
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
the history sheet of the first party workman imposed the
punishment. So, from this, it is also clear that though the
first party workman submitted his reply against the articles
of charge the second party management without
conducting the conducted domestic enquiry passed the
impugned order of punishment. As per Regulation 22 of the
C & D Regulation even for imposing minor punishment the
Second Party management shall inform the delinquent in
writing stating that it has intended to impose minor
punishment. Apart from this, it is well settled law that
without conveying the massage of its intention to impose
minor punishment to the delinquent the management
cannot impose even minor punishment. But, it is not the
case of the Second Party management that first party
workman was conveyed with message that minor
punishment would be imposed. Generally if any punishment
imposed against any employee, the same will be entered in
the Service Register of the employee. Though it is the case
of the Second Party management that in view of the
circular at Ex.M.1 the records pertaining to the nature of
this case are preserved only for five to ten years, the first
party workman raised the dispute after lapse of about 15
years and hence the Second Party management is unable
to produce the documents, but Second Party management
can very well get the copy of the punishment order in the
Service Register of the first party workman. But the Second
Party management has not made any efforts to produce the
same before this Tribunal to show that the Disciplinary
Authority strictly followed the provisions of C & D
Regulations while imposing punishment against the first
party workman. Therefore, in the absence of production of
order of punishment by the Second Party management an
adverse inference has to be drawn against the Second
Party management holding that the Disciplinary Authority
has not followed the provisions of C & D Regulations while
imposing punishment against the first party workman and
hence it has not produced the order of punishment though
it is in its possession. Mere saying that the punishment
imposed is just and proper and it is imposed in accordance
with law is not sufficient to hold that the punishment
imposed is legal and the Disciplinary Authority has followed
the procedure as laid down in the C & D Regulations while
passing the impugned order of punishment. When the
domestic enquiry is not conducted the burden is on the
management to justify the impugned order of punishment.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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. Thus, I answer issue No. 2 as indicted above.
14. Issue No.3 : In the result, I proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
Reference bearing No. Ka.E. : 321 : IDG :
2011 dated 7.12.2011 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 : DFL : A-1 : 2818(94) : 1546
dated 26.4.1995 of the Disciplinary Authority
reducing one annual incremental stage of the first
party workman permanently is hereby set aside.
The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits
which are denied consequent upon impugned
order of 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.
Copy of this award be sent to the
Government for publication as contemplated
under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947. ”
4. The issue whether delay could be condoned by the
Tribunal of the magnitude that it has done need not detain this
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as t he said issue 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.
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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:
“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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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 : 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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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 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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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 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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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 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:
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
“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.
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.”
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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.
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
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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
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
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
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. ”
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 explanation by the workman in
raising the dispute belatedly, the very 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.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 107926 of 2014
CNR: KAHC020086042014
7. In light of the above, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed ;
ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal dated
20.08.2013 passed in ID No.67/2011 is
set-aside.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33