Dismissed¶61

Sri S Basavaiah v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WP/25951/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily-wage watchman; termination 1999; belated/stale industrial dispute; waiver by delay and laches; reference dismissed for non-prosecution 30.06.2003; regularization application rejected 30.08.2007; 240 days continuous service not proved; compensation in lieu of reinstatement refused; Labor Court award upheld; Prabhakar (2015) 15 SCC 1 relied on; W.P.No.5644/2019 remand; Karnataka High Court; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Labor Court rightly concluded that the dispute was hopelessly belated: the 2003 dismissal for non-prosecution and the 2007 rejection of the regularization application were never assailed, and after nearly seventeen years of silence the petitioner sought to reopen his 1999 termination. ¶47

Sri S Basavaiah Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the award of the Labor Court dated 16.04.2025 rejecting the petitioner's reference requires interference by this Court.

¶45

Court's answer

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Applying Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, where there is no agitation against the punishment and the belated dispute with unexplained delay and laches is raised, the right is presumed waived; in the present case the dispute had virtually become stale when raised.

¶53

Key takeaways

On merits, the petitioner failed to substantiate his plea of continuous service, not having established completion of 240 days in the service of the respondent-department.ratio¶54
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement cannot be awarded because the petitioner raised the dispute after an ordinate delay; he is not entitled to monetary compensation.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a daily-wage watchman (appointed 1986, terminated 1999) challenging the Labor Court award dated 16.04.2025 rejecting his reference on remand (the earlier award of 15.10.2018 having been set aside in W.P.No.5644/2019). Held: the reference in Ref No. 16/2001 stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.06.2003 and the subsequent regularization application was dismissed on 30.08.2007, neither being assailed; the dispute raised in 2016, after nearly seventeen years, was hopelessly belated and stale — per Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, unexplained delay and laches presume waiver of the workman's right. On merits, the petitioner failed to establish completion of 240 days of continuous service. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement was refused for the same ordinate delay. Writ petition dismissed; interim orders, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 25951 OF 2025 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. S.BASAVAIAH. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, RESIDENT OF VEERASAGARA, MELEKOTE ROAD, OPP. TO VEERABHADRESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, TUMAKURU-577101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER,

¶14

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

¶15

IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶16

7^TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 7^TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶18

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NEAR BHADRAMMA CHOULTRY, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

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

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2026, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Yoganna., Additional Government Advocate for the respondents have appeared in person.

¶29

2. The short facts are as follows.

¶30

The petitioner was engaged/appointed as a

¶31

watchman on a daily wage basis by the respondents in 1986. It is stated that the respondents illegally terminated the petitioner’s service in 1999. A dispute was raised in Ref No. 16/2001, and the same was dismissed

¶32

for non- prosecution in 2003. The petitioner gave

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

representation to the respondents with a request to reinstate him into service in terms of the government order dated 04.01.2003.

¶36

As the matter stood thus, the petitioner raised a dispute in 2016, and the Labor Court rejected the reference on 15.10.2018. The petitioner assailed the award in W.P.No.5644/2019, and the award was set aside, and a remand order was passed. After the remand, the Labor Court rejected the reference on 16.04.2025. Under these circumstances, the present writ is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶37

Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following order.

¶39

SRI.A.N.BASAVARAJA V/S. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.22525/2022

¶40

DISPOSED OF ON 23.07.2024.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Heard and pursued the papers with care.

¶44

The short point that requires consideration is

¶45

whether the award requires interference by this Court.

¶46

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not

¶47

warrant reiteration. It is enough to note that the reference raised by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.06.2003 for non-prosecution. The subsequent application for regularization was also dismissed on 30.08.2007. The petitioner remained silent and did not assail either of these orders before the higher forums. After a lapse of nearly seventeen years, he sought to reopen the issue by raising a dispute against his termination in 1999. The Labor Court, upon an extensive consideration of the material on record, rightly concluded that the dispute was hopelessly belated.

¶48

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

¶49

AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

that when there is no agitation by the workman against

¶53

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, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute.

¶54

On merits also, the Court correctly held that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his plea of continuous service, since he did not establish completion of 240 days in the service of the respondent-department.

¶55

Counsel for the petitioner, in the last limb of his submissions, urged that compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. This contention, however, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner raised the dispute after an ordinate delay. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

to be compensated in monetary terms. Resultantly, the

¶60

writ petition dismissed .

¶61

Because of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim

¶62