This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal Award that rejected a workman's dispute reference on grounds of delay and laches, upholding the Tribunal's finding of a seven-year stale claim.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:36392 WP No. 19752 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.19752 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
V.THATHACHAR S/O LATE VENKATANARASHIMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PERESANDRA CROSS, GUDIBANDE ROAD, PERESANDRA POST, NEAR SUGUNA PRINTER, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 210.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHANKARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 127.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:36392 WP No. 19752 of 2019
ORDER
Sri.Shankarappa., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.
NC: 2023:KHC:36392 WP No. 19752 of 2019
1.
NC: 2023:KHC:36392 WP No. 19752 of 2019
"42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination, the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain 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." In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/ Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.
44. To summarize, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is a satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after a long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry."
NC: 2023:KHC:36392 WP No. 19752 of 2019
Reverting to the facts of the case, the order of punishment was passed back in the year 2004. However, the workman chose to challenge the order of punishment in the year 2012 i.e., after a lapse of seven years. There is an inordinate delay in raising a dispute. The dispute had become stale as of the date of the adjudication. Hence, the Tribunal has rejected the claim statement on the grounds of delay and laches and confirmed the order of punishment. The award of the Tribunal is just and proper. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal Award rejecting the reference on grounds of delay and laches requires interference by this Court.
Whether a seven-year lapse in raising a dispute over a 2004 punishment order constitutes an inordinate delay vitiating the industrial adjudication.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTORReferred¶27
(2015) 15 SCC PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR · Who else cites this
V.THATHACHAR
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C.
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
