Dismissed¶48

Sri K B Gadigeppa v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/3089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches in raising industrial dispute; six-year unexplained delay; stale/non-existing dispute; presumed waiver of right (Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1 applied); S.M. Nilajkar, (2003) 4 SCC 27 distinguished; minor punishment of reduction of three annual increments with cumulative effect; disciplinary inquiry into alleged second marriage; BMTC Driver; Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore award in I.D.No.32/2012 confirmed; writ petition dismissed under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The workman offered no explanation for the inordinate delay of almost six years in raising the dispute; applying Prabhakar ((2015) 15 SCC 1), the dispute had become stale, and the Tribunal rightly rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. ¶44

Sri K B Gadigeppa Vs the Chief Traffic Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches and confirming the punishment order requires interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

On the merits of the case also, the Tribunal was justified in not interfering with the managerial decision of imposing the minor punishment.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

¶44

Key takeaways

The law is not in doubt; each decision turns on its own facts, and the present case falls to be tested in the light of Prabhakar ((2015) 15 SCC 1), so reliance on S.M. Nilajkar ((2003) 4 SCC 27) does not assist the petitioner.ratio¶45
For the reasons stated, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Jyoti M, J.; oral order dated 12.11.2025) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the award dated 16.11.2018 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.32/2012, which had rejected the workman's reference as barred by delay and laches and confirmed the punishment order dated 18.08.2006 (reduction of three annual increments with cumulative effect) passed after a disciplinary inquiry into the alleged contraction of a second marriage. Held: the dispute was raised after an unexplained delay of almost six years; testing the case in the light of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, a belated and unexplained dispute is presumed waived and had become stale, and the Tribunal rightly rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. Reliance on S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 was of no avail, each decision turning on its own facts. On the merits also, the Tribunal was justified in not interfering with the managerial decision imposing minor punishment. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of and interim directions stood discharged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45972 WP No. 3089 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 3089 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.B. GADIGEPPA S/O BANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, BANASHANKARI NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, BATTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45972 WP No. 3089 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Naveen Kumar., counsel on behalf of

¶23

Sri.Mukkannappa.S.B., for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶24

The petition averments are stated as follows:

¶25

The petitioner is a regular employee of the Corporation and working as a Driver. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings alleging that he contracted a second marriage. After holding a detailed inquiry, the punishment order was passed reducing three annual increments with cumulative effect on 18.08.2006. After a lapse of almost six years, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.32/2012. The Tribunal vide award dated 16.11.2018 rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches and also confirmed the order of punishment. Hence, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶27

Counsel Sri.Naveen Kumar., submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45972 WP No. 3089 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

laches as there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under the I.D Act. He argued by saying that the Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the I.D Act to make a reference. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed. In support of his contention, counsel placed reliance on the decision in S.M.NILAJKAR AND OTHERS VS. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA reported in (2003) 4 SCC 27 .

¶31

By way of reply, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost six years in raising the dispute. She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble 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 submits that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches and on the merits of the case. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:45972 WP No. 3089 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶36

with care.

¶37

The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶38

The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to delay and laches. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment in 2006. Strangely, he raised a dispute in 2012. The workman did not offer any explanation for the delay and laches. There is an inordinate delay of almost six years. The Apex Court in PRABHAKAR

¶39

V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND

¶40

ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman for a long time 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

¶41

raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45972 WP No. 3089 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

first party, it had virtually become a stale dispute. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. Moreover, on the merits of the case also, the Tribunal is justified in not interfering with the managerial decision of imposing minor punishment.

¶45

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decision.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶48

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶49

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶50

TKN,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri K B Gadigeppa v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K B Gadigeppa v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Karnataka Plantation Staff & General

City Municipal Council Doddaballapura Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Sri Mahadeva Vs the Department of Urban Development

Sri B Shivanna Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Mangala Vs the Senior Divisional Controller

B Venkatesh Vs the Chief Accounts Officer

Quicloc Private Ltd. Workers Union Vs the Management of Quicloc Private Limited