- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.341 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.330 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) IN WA No. 341/2021: BETWEEN: SRI. H. HIRANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, DRIVER, BADGE NO.6381, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC, EMPLOYEES UNION-INTUC, SRI. MANJUNATHA BUILDING, ADUVALLY MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUMA K, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201 Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/12/2020 PASSED BY HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.19195/2015 AND GRANT COSTS AND OTHER RELIES AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN WA NO. 330/2021: BETWEEN: SRI. H HIRANNAIAH S/O HANUMA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS MARADI VILLAGE, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE POST: GORUR, AAKALAGUDI TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUMA K, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN – 573 201 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/12/2020 PASSED BY HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.12250/2019 AND GRANT COS TS AND OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Both the above appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.12.2020 in W.P.No.19195/2015 and W.P.No.12250/2019. Workmen is in appeal in both the above appeals, questioning the rejection of his Writ Petition No.12250/2019, wherein he had questioned denial of back wages under Award dated 28.05.2014 in Reference No.11/2012 before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru. In W.P.No.19195/2015, the KSRTC was before the learned Single Judge questioning the Award dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 28.05.2014 passed in same Reference No.11/2012 by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru, which was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, while the appellant was working as a Driver in KSRTC, Charge sheet dated 27.10.1999 was issued to the appellant. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.11.2002 holding that charges are proved. Based on the said enquiry report, punishment dated 31.12.2003 was imposed on the appellant reducing the pay of the appellant from selection grade to basic pay, against which, the appellant is said to have filed appeal, which came to be rejected by order dated 30.11.2004. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, criminal case initiated against the appellant, was dismissed and appellant was acquitted of charges by judgment dated 05.01.2007. The dispute raised by the appellant was referred to Industrial Tribunal on 30.01.2012 and the Industrial Tribunal allowed the Reference under Award dated 28.05.2014 holding that charges are not proved and set aside the order of penalty but denied the back wages. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 3. Questioning the Award, the respondent - KSRTC was before the learned Single Judge whereas, the appellant was before the learned Single Judge against portion of the Award which denied the back wages. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties by common order dated 30.12.2020 allowed the writ petition of the respondent - KSRTC setting aside the Award and rejected the writ petition of the appellant. Questioning the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above two writ appeals are filed. 4. Heard Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the appellant – workmen and Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent – KSRTC and perused the entire writ appeal papers. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge was not right in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent - KSRTC and in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 submitted that the action of the respondent - KSRTC imposing penalty was by practicing unfair labour practice and the punishment imposed is excessive when compared to the gravity and nature of charge. Learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the fact that the appellant approached the Industrial Tribunal subsequent to acquittal in criminal case in the year 2007, allowed the Writ Petition of KSRTC on the ground that there was delay on the part of workman in raising dispute. It is submitted that there was no delay of 9 years as observed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant would pray for allowing the writ appeals. 6. Per contra, Smt.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent - KSRTC supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the appellant - workmen on imposition of penalty on 31.12.2003 filed appeal which was rejected on 30.11.2004. The appellant was expected to seek reference within a reasonable time - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 but more than 7 years after, he sought reference. Further, learned counsel would submit that there is no explanation for more than 7 years delay in approaching the Industrial Tribunal. In the absence of any explanation, learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition and in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Babu Ram reported in (2006) 5 SCC 433. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is as follows:- 1. Whether the impugned order requires interference at the hands of this Court? 8. The answer to the above point would be in ‘Negative’ for the following reasons:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 Admittedly, under order dated 31.12.2003, the appellant was imposed punishment of reduction of pay from selection grade to basic pay. Appeal filed against the said order of punishment was also rejected on 30.11.2004. Appellant was expected to approach the Industrial Tribunal by getting reference within a reasonable time. But the appellant approached the Industrial Tribunal only on 30.01.2012 after more than 7 years from the date of rejection of his appeal against the order of punishment. In his claim statement or before the learned Single Judge, the appellant has not stated anything or explained the delay of 7 years in approaching the Industrial Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court, which the learned Single Judge has also referred, in Babu Ram’s case (supra) held that, it is for the workmen by placing material on record to show that he had raised dispute within a reasonable time and that he was not responsible for delayed reference. 9. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the punishment affected the salary and allowances of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23865-DB WA No. 341 of 2021 C/W WA No. 330 of 2021 appellant and the workmen was reminded of the punishment every month when he received lesser salary. When appellant reminded of punishment every month, he failed to challenge the order of punishment within a reasonable time. A person sleeps over his right would not be entitled for any relief under writ jurisdiction. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeals stand rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42