Allowed¶58

State Bank of Mysore v. Mr Mohammed Kallemulla

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026WP/36918/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches barring a belated industrial-dispute reference; stale dispute and presumed waiver under Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015) 15 SCC 1; writ of certiorari quashing CGIT/Labour Court award; bank employee dismissed after domestic inquiry (1999), appeal rejected (2000), dispute raised only in 2007; Article 226 writ petition by State Bank of Mysore / SBI; Karnataka High Court, Jyoti M, J., order dated 14.07.2026; WP No. 36918 of 2013 (L-TER); C.R.No.142/2007; NC: 2026:KHC:36054.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued: the order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the CGIT-Cum-Labor Court, Bengaluru, in C.R.No.142/2007 (Annexure-N) is quashed and the order of dismissal is confirmed; interim orders, if any, stand discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶58

State Bank of Mysore Vs Mr Mohammed Kallemulla — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the award of the Tribunal (CGIT-Cum-Labor Court, Bengaluru, dated 08.01.2013) warrants interference by this Court. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The award of the Tribunal warrants interference and is set aside; the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects (delay and laches).

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The respondent was punished in 1999, the appeal was rejected in 2000 and the earlier writ petition dismissed in 2005, yet he raised the dispute only in 2007; there is thus an inordinate, unexplained delay and the Tribunal erroneously entertained his claim.

¶47

Key takeaways

Following Prabhakar (supra): where the workman does not agitate against the order of punishment and raises the dispute belatedly with delay and laches unexplained, the right is presumed waived and the dispute, being stale, ceases to be an existing dispute; accordingly, in this case the dispute was stale at adjudication and the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference.ratio¶51
Since the reference fails on delay and laches alone, the Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute, as requested by the petitioner's counsel.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Jyoti M, J.) allowed a writ petition by State Bank of Mysore (since amended to the General Manager (HR), State Bank of India) and quashed the award dated 08.01.2013 of the CGIT-Cum-Labor Court, Bengaluru in C.R.No.142/2007 (Annexure-N), which had allowed a reference by a workman discharged after a domestic inquiry (punishment 16.12.1999; appeal rejected 17.08.2000; earlier writ petition dismissed as not maintainable in 2005). Held: the workman raised the dispute only in 2007 — an inordinate and unexplained delay; relying on Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1, where a workman does not agitate against the punishment order and raises the dispute belatedly with delay unexplained, the right is presumed waived and the dispute, having become stale, ceases to exist; the Tribunal therefore could not have entertained the reference and erred in doing so. The matter was decided solely on delay and laches, without examining the merits; the order of dismissal was confirmed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 36918 OF 2013 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE BANK OF MYSORE, CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) ACT, 1959, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (ADMN. & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) MYSORE ZONAL OFFICE, SAHUKAR CHENNIAH ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570021.

¶9

AMENDED AS: THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR) STATE BANK OF INDIA, ST. MARK'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUBHA ANANTHI K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. MOHAMMED KALLEMULLA, SON OF SRI. KUTHUBIDIN SAHIB, GARIBI QUARTERS, POST KALKUNI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571421.

¶15

BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

1(A) MR. JAI BUNNISHA (ALIAS YASMIN), W/O. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, GARIBI QUARTERS, P.O.KALKUNI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571424.

¶19

1(B) MRS. SAMEENA BANU W/O. ILIYAS PASHA, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU.

¶20

1(C) MRS. UMEERA BANU, W/O. MANSOOR, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, KAUDHALLI VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶21

1(D) MRS. SAHERA BANU W/O. PAPPU, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KELEEMULLA, BENGALURU.

¶22

1(E) MRS. HEENA KAUSAR, W/O. SADIQ, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KELLEMULLA, RAJENDRA NAGAR, MYSURU.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A, B & D)-ABSENT; R1(C & E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Sri.Mohan Kumar K., counsel on behalf of Smt.K.Subha Ananthi, for the petitioner appeared in person.

¶32

When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1(A, B & D), either personally or through video conferencing. The petition was listed on 29.06.2026, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondents. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the respondents, it was ordered to be listed today. Today, the petition is listed, as already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1(A, B & D), this Court deems it appropriate to pass orders on the merits the case.

¶33

Notice to respondent No.1(C) and (E) was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that they are served and unrepresented. Respondent No.1(C) and (E) have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conduct the case as a party-in-person.

¶34

2. The brief facts are these:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The respondent, was employed as a peon in the petitioner

¶39

Bank. He came under disciplinary proceedings for an act of misconduct. He was issued with Articles of Charge. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted the findings holding that the charges are established. The disciplinary authority discharged the respondent with superannuation benefits on 16.12.1999. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:17.08.2000 rejected the appeal.

¶40

Aggrieved by the same he preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. He raised a dispute before the CGIT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by Bank is fair and proper. The CGIT vide order dated:08.01.2013 allowed the reference. 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

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

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 he is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 1999. He preferred an appeal and also the writ petition. The appeal was rejected in 2000 and the petition was dismissed in 2005. The respondent did not raised the dispute assailing the order of punishment before the Tribunal or the Labor Court at an appropriate time. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2007. There is thus an inordinate delay. The Tribunal erroneously entertained the claim of the respondent. In my considered view, the Tribunal could not have

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

entertained the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon’ble

¶51

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 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 several 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.

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated

¶57

08.01.2013 passed by the CGIT-Cum-Labor Court, Bengaluru, in C.R.No.142/2007 vide Annexure-N is quashed. The order of dismissal is confirmed.

¶58

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶61

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

State Bank of Mysore v. Mr Mohammed Kallemulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of Mysore v. Mr Mohammed Kallemulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna K Vs Shri M R Doreswamy

The Company Secretary and General Power of Attorney Holder Vs Mr. J Anantharaj

Mr. Krishnan Rangachari Vs Bank of Baroda

The Management of Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt E v Lalitha Vs M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

Syed Nazeer Vs the Appellate Authority