Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. C D Ramaiah

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/15756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC Chikkaballapur Division v. LRs of C.D.Ramaiah (driver); Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Writ Petition (L-KSRTC) No. 15756 of 2024; Articles 226 and 227; writ of certiorari; industrial dispute I.D.No.193/2011; Industrial Tribunal Bengaluru award dated 28.04.2022 set aside; punishment order 12.09.2000 (reduction of basic pay by one stage permanently) confirmed; delay and laches; inordinate delay of almost ten years; stale dispute; presumed waiver of right; Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another (2015) 15 SCC 1 relied upon; merits not discussed; interim order discharged.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari ordered: award dated 28.04.2022 in I.D.No.193/2011 set aside and punishment order confirmed; interim order (if any) discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed. ¶¶58

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C D… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of Certiorari ordered: award dated 28.04.2022 in I.D.No.193/2011 set aside and punishment order confirmed; interim order (if any) discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed.

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.193/2011 warrants interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶48

Court's answer

The award warrants interference: the Writ of Certiorari is ordered; the award dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.193/2011 is set aside and the punishment order is confirmed.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

With no agitation by the workman against the punishment order and the delay and laches remaining unexplained, the right is presumed waived and the dispute, raised after a lapse of ten years, had become stale; hence the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference.

¶¶55

Key takeaways

The Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects (delay and laches); since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single judge, Justice Jyoti M) — W.P. No. 15756 of 2024 (L-KSRTC): Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Chikkaballapur Division petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 against the award dated 28.04.2022 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.193/2011, which had set aside the punishment order of 12.09.2000 (permanent reduction of basic pay by one stage) imposed on its driver C.D.Ramaiah following a disciplinary inquiry. The workman raised the dispute only in 2011, nearly ten years after the punishment, without any intervening agitation. Counsel for the Corporation sought a finding only on delay and laches, contending the award contravened Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. Holding that with delay and laches unexplained the workman's right stands presumed waived and the dispute had become stale, the Court concluded the Tribunal erroneously entertained the reference, disregarding material aspects. Certiorari was ordered: the Tribunal's award was set aside and the punishment order confirmed; the Writ Petition was allowed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36192 WP No. 15756 of 2024

¶4

CNR: KAHC010322802024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15756 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

C.D.RAMAIAH,

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶17

LAKSHMAMMA,

¶18

W/O. LATE C.D.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶19

HARIPRASAD, S/O. LATE C.D.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶20

RAMYA, D/O. LATE C.D.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:36192 WP No. 15756 of 2024

¶24

CNR: KAHC010322802024

¶25

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.A 1127, VIDYANAGAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR-572214.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(R1 TO R3 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

Notice to the respondent was ordered. A perusal of the office notice depicts that the respondents are served and unrepresented. The respondents have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party-in-person.

¶33

2. The brief facts are these:

¶34

The workman Sri.C.D.Ramaiah - since deceased was employed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation.

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:36192 WP No. 15756 of 2024

¶38

CNR: KAHC010322802024

¶39

He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings. He was issued with Articles of Charge, and he submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. He was imposed with an order of punishment on 12.09.2000 by reducing the basic pay by one stage permanently.

¶40

After a lapse of almost ten years, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.193/2011. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2022 set aside the order of punishment. This Award is now called into question in the present Writ Petition on several grounds set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶41

Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. It has been vehemently contended that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another , (2015) 15 SCC 1. Counsel submitted that she is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case

¶42

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:36192 WP No. 15756 of 2024

¶45

CNR: KAHC010322802024

¶46

and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches.

¶47

I have heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care.

¶48

The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal warrants interference.

¶49

Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 2000. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2011. There is thus an inordinate delay of almost ten years.

¶50

The Tribunal erroneously entertained the claim of the workman. In my considered view, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar (supra) has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly, with the delay and laches remaining unexplained, it must be presumed that he has waived his right. It is further observed that at the time when the dispute is raised belatedly, it becomes stale and ceases to

¶51

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:36192 WP No. 15756 of 2024

¶54

CNR: KAHC010322802024

¶55

be an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become stale. The Tribunal overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. The dispute was stale at the time of adjudication, having been raised after a lapse of ten years. Hence, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. In my view, the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶56

For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside.

¶57

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.193/2011 is set aside. The punishment order is confirmed.

¶58