Allowed

The Divisional Controller v. N Chinnappa

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023WP/14968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Labour Tribunal's order setting aside a penalty imposed on a KSRTC driver for an accident. The Court held that the ten-year delay in seeking relief regarding the 1999 penalty was unexplained, rendering the dispute stale despite the driver's statutory right under the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, setting aside the penalty, is set-aside.

The Divisional Controller Vs N Chinnappa — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27199 WP No. 14968 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.14968 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 001, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

N.CHINNAPPA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.3482, KSRTC, SHIMOGA DEPOT, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:27199 WP No. 14968 of 2013

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

2. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The respondent is a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He droved a bus in a high speed and caused an accident while driving on the route Shivamogga - Bengaluru. Hence, the departmental enquiry was held and he was imposed minor penalty reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages permanently. It is said that the Police too lodged a criminal

¶23

case against the respondent. The enquiry resulted in the indictment of the driver. Aggrieved by the disciplinary action and the consequent penalty order, the delinquent raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court having declared the enquiry as bad, evidence was adduced by both the parties. The Labour Court on perusal of the material proceeded to set-aside the disciplinary order dated:30.08.2012. It is this order that is

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27199 WP No. 14968 of 2013

¶25

called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

¶27

have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶28

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that though the order of penalty was imposed in the year 1999, the delinquent sought reference after a lapse of 10 years. Hence, there is a delay and latches on the part of the delinquent to seek reference. She argued by saying that in the Claim statement also, there is no averment about the delay and latches. Hence, she submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aspect regarding delay and has erroneously passed the award. Therefore, she submits that the award is unsustainable in law.

¶29

In reply, Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that the respondent was a driver and he met with an accident and he was diligently prosecuting the appeals before the Motor

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27199 WP No. 14968 of 2013

¶31

Vehicle Tribunal and he had also filed an appeal. Hence, there is a delay. He argued by saying that the Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly justified in passing the award. Therefore, he submits that the petition lacks merits and hence the same may be dismissed.

¶32

A perusal of the Writ papers depicts that the order of penalty was imposed way back in the year 1999. To be precise, the minor penalty reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages permanently was imposed by the Corporation on 10.07.1999. Strangely, the delinquent sought reference after a lapse of 10 years. I have also perused the claim statement which is at Annexure-C. There is no averment about the delay. The Corporation filed a detailed statement of objections and particularly raised an objection regarding delay. In my view, there is absolutely no material on the part of the delinquent to show why the delay of 10 years is caused to seek reference. In my view, the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. If there is a delay of 10 years, then question of looking into the merits of the case does not arise for consideration. Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶33

PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27199 WP No. 14968 of 2013

¶35

DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that if the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and latches remained unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case also the delinquent has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of ten years. Hence, the claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

¶36

Resultantly, the Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:30.08.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in Dispute No.315/2009 vide Annexure-G is set-aside.

¶37

The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶38

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

The Divisional Controller v. N Chinnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. N Chinnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ernst & Young LLP Vs Ms Sheeba Roshni

Sri Govinda Bin Late K v Krishnappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Sree Siddaganga Institute of Technology Vs T S Nataraj Aradhaya

Sri P Shankara Vs Union of India

Smt Savithramma Vs Smt Parvathamma

Smt Savithramma Vs Sri G R Manjegowda