KSRTC Conductor’s Five-Increment Pay Cut Stands After Karnataka HC Sets Aside Award Over Unexplained 15-Year Delay

In brief

The question

Whether the workman’s unexplained delay of approximately fourteen years in raising the industrial dispute rendered the dispute stale and not maintainable before the Tribunal

The court held

The Court held that the unexplained delay rendered the dispute not maintainable before the Tribunal.

It also directed

It allowed the Corporation’s writ petition and set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 22 April 2013 in I.D. No. 152/2008.

01Facts

The workman, a conductor, was penalised by an order dated 14 October 1993, which reduced his basic pay by five incremental stages with cumulative effect.

p. 4, 9

He challenged the penalty through an industrial dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal in 2007, approximately fourteen years after the penalty order.

p. 3, 9

The Tribunal set aside the penalty and granted consequential monetary benefits, finding that the management had failed to prove the misconduct.

pp. 9–10

The Corporation challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Tribunal had failed to address the unexplained delay.

p. 1, 10

02Issues

i.Whether the workman’s unexplained delay of approximately fourteen years in raising the industrial dispute rendered the dispute stale and not maintainable before the Tribunal

pp. 10, 18–20

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s award setting aside the penalty and granting consequential monetary benefits could stand in light of that delay

pp. 10, 20–21

03Law Applied

Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute, but the absence of a prescribed limitation period does not permit a stale dispute to be revived at any time; whether a dispute is stale depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

pp. 13–16

In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Ram, (2006) 5 SCC 433, the Supreme Court held that the workman must place material showing that the dispute was raised within a reasonable time and explain any delay attributable to him.

pp. 13–16

The Court also relied on its decision in W.P. No. 19195/2015 c/w W.P. No. 12250/2019, dated 30 December 2020, concerning unexplained delay in challenging a penalty, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 341/2021 c/w W.A. No. 330/2021, dated 3 July 2025.

pp. 10, 18–20

Provisions in the judgment · 3

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10Section 17ASection 11A

04Reasoning

The workman challenged the 1993 penalty only through a dispute referred in 2007, and the Tribunal gave no adequate reason for condoning that substantial delay.

pp. 9–10

Applying Babu Ram, the Court held that the workman had to explain why the dispute was not raised within a reasonable time; the Tribunal’s reliance on the general proposition that delay does not invalidate a reference did not answer the question whether this particular dispute had become stale.

pp. 10, 13–16

The continuing effect of the pay reduction, reflected in the workman’s salary each month, did not excuse his failure to challenge the penalty promptly.

pp. 16–20

As the dispute was not maintainable due to unexplained delay, the Court did not need to consider the other grounds concerning the Tribunal’s assessment of the misconduct.

p. 18, 20