Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. a H Keshavamurthy

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal's award that set aside a 1994 punishment order against a workman. The Tribunal had condoned a 21-year delay in raising the dispute. The Court held the delay was unexplained and the dispute stale, quashing the Tribunal's award and confirming the original punishment under labour tribunals separation of powers principles.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 07.02.2023 in I.D.No.170/2015 is quashed; the order of minor punishment dated 07.11.1994 is confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 439 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANGERE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, 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

A.H.KESHAVAMURTHY W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, EX-CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.1226 (389), CHITRADURGA DEPOT, C/O SECRETARY, KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, JAYANAGAR 'B' BLOCK, NITTUVALLI, DAVANGERE-570 008.

¶13

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶21

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 25.04.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶22

2. The short facts are these:

¶23

The respondent was a conductor in the establishment of the corporation. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment on 07.11.1994 denying two increments with cumulative effect. Strangely, after a lapse of almost twenty-one years, he raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D.No.170/2015 for adjudication. The Corporation filed its counter-statement resisting the claim petition. The Corporation examined one witness stating that the records pertaining to the

¶24

dispute are not available because of the delay in raising the dispute. The workman did not choose to examine himself nor

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶27

produced any documents. The Tribunal on adjudication of the dispute, held that the order of punishment is not justified and set aside the order of punishment vide award dated 07.02.2023. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶28

Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost twenty-one years in raising the dispute. She relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in ( 2015) 15 SCC 1 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law regarding delay and laches. Counsel submitted that she is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give a finding only on delay and laches.

¶29

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶31

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶32

Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale?

¶33

Whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference by this Court?

¶34

The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that, the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment back in the year 1994 i.e., on 07.11.1994. Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost twenty-one years. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision reported in NWKRTC, GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADHANA, GULBARGA VS. SMT.GODAVARI W/O.LATE SHANKRAPPA AND OTHERS in W.P.NO.82293/2011 disposed of on 28.09.2021 condoned the delay. This is unsustainable in law.

¶35

The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶37

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. In the present case, the order of minor punishment was passed on 07.11.1994. However, the dispute was raised in the year 2015. There is an inordinate delay of almost twenty-one years. Hence, when the dispute was raised by the workman, virtually it had become a stale dispute. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously condoned the delay.

¶38

Furthermore, before the Tribunal, the Corporation examined its Superintendent as MW1 and sought to contend that the records concerning the dispute are not available on account of the delay in raising the dispute. On the other hand, the respondent did not choose to examine himself nor produced documents to substantiate his claim. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the dispute on the grounds of delay and laches. In any view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal cannot be

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:50433 WP No. 439 of 2024

¶41

sustained. The award of the Tribunal is otherwise erroneous and unjust. Since the dispute is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by counsel for the petitioner.

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D.No.170/2015 vide Annexure-D is quashed. The order of minor punishment dated 07.11.1994 is confirmed.

¶43

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted by this Court, if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶46

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. a H Keshavamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. a H Keshavamurthy

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

Sri Siddappa Vs M Maralusiddappa

M/S KSF-9 Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

S K Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager (Ele)

Dr Divya Kumari C T Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Govindappa

C O Krishna Vs State of Karnataka