A KSRTC driver-cum-conductor punished for a bus accident in 2008 raised an industrial dispute nine years later. The Tribunal rejected the reference as stale due to delay and laches. The High Court, relying on the Prabhakar decision, confirmed the award and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 28772 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.B.MAHESHA S/O LATE S.G.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.360, K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN DIVISION, R/AT NEAR THIRUMALA CHOULTRY, DASARA KOPPALU, VIDYANAGAR POST, HASSAN-573 202.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISIONS, HASSAN-582 101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:50645 WP No. 28772 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
Smt.Manjula Kulkarni., counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the respondent has appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with Articles of charge alleging that he caused an accident on 13.10.2005 while driving the bus on the route of Holenarasipura to Kotagena Hosur at about 7 p.m., due to which 20 passengers were injured. He submitted his reply and denied the allegations. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. He submitted his reply to the same. He was visited with an order of minor punishment on 15.12.2008 reducing the pay of the petitioner by one incremental stage permanently and to recover Rs.800/-
NC: 2024:KHC:50645 WP No. 28772 of 2023
in two equal installments from his salary towards damages caused to the vehicle.
Strangely, after a lapse of almost nine years, he raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in I.D.No.228/2017 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 27.08.2019 rejected the reference. This award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
Smt.Manjula Kulkarni., counsel for the petitioner in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that there is no delay and laches on the part of the workman. She also argued by saying that due to fear of the Management the workman could not raised the dispute.
Next she submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. She argued by saying that the imposition of a minor penalty is also
untenable. Counsel, therefore, submits that the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed.
By way of reply, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. She argued by saying that there was an inordinate delay of nine years in raising the dispute. She drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner has not made any grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
NC: 2024:KHC:50645 WP No. 28772 of 2023
It is not in dispute that the delinquent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment back in the year 2008 i.e., on 15.12.2008. Strangely, he raised the dispute in the year 2017.
It is pivotal to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remained unexplained, it should be presumed that he had waived his right. It is also observed that at the time when the dispute was raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case also, when the dispute was raised by the workman, virtually it had become a stale dispute.
workman challenged the order of punishment in the year 2017 i.e., after a lapse of almost nine years. There is an inordinate delay in raising a dispute. The dispute had become stale as of the date of the adjudication. The first point for reference was also about the delay and laches. The Tribunal referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the references on the grounds of delay and laches. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches and I am confirming the award of the Tribunal. Hence, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of case. In my view, the award of the Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting the reference on grounds of delay and laches in raising the dispute requires interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and AnotherRelied on¶39
(2015) 15 SCC 1. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.B. Mahesha
The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hassan Division
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
