- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 22681 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. C.N. BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE C K NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O NO.28, 14TH CROSS, TRIANGLE FORTUNE LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BHOGADI,MYSURU-570026, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED). …PETITIONER (BY SRI M R RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI H N BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE BHAVANA, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. 2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L), CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE BHAVANA, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. 3. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSURU CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION, MYSURU - 570026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R B ANAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 24.4.2007 ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND THE AWARD/ORDER DTD 15.12.2017 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, IN REFERENCE NO.31 OF 2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H REPSECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. M.R. Rajgopal, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner - employee was subjected to an enquiry where penalty of deduction of one increment was imposed on him. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the penalty imposed on 15.11.2012. The Appellate Authority on 23.02.2013 dismissed the appeal. Petitioner filed revision against the order of the Appellate Authority and the revision was not considered. Then, petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. On 21.11.2015, the Conciliation Officer reported that the conciliation failed. Then the dispute - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 was referred by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal recorded a finding that inquiry is fair and proper and thereafter, both parties led evidence. However, reference is rejected only on the premise that reference is belated. 4. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority and before the authority which has the power to exercise the jurisdiction of revision and later, the industrial dispute was raised and matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer till 21.11.2015 and thereafter, the appropriate Government referred the dispute in 2016 and the dispute should have been considered on its merit and the Tribunal could not have rejected the reference on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference as it was filed in the year 2016 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority which was rendered on 23.02.2013. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. It is noticed that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 23.02.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction and the matter was placed before the Director, Central Office, Bengaluru. It appears that the said revision was not considered on merits. Thereafter, industrial dispute was raised. Admittedly, on 21.11.2015, Conciliation Officer records a finding that conciliation failed. This would mean that the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer till 2015. The Government then referred the mater to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Considering the above facts, it is quite evident that the petitioner was continuously agitating his grievances eversince the penalty dated 15.11.2012 before various authorities provided under the applicable Act and Rules. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 8. The matter was also pending before the Conciliation Officer and the Government has referred the matter in the year 2016 to the Industrial Tribunal. 9. Chronology of events referred to above would clearly reveal that the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting the matter before the authorities. The Tribunal could not have rejected the reference on the premise that it is belated. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned award dated 15.12.2017 in Reference No.31/2016 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru is set-aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru for fresh adjudication to consider the claim of the petitioner relating to victimization. It is not necessary to reconsider the findings relating to fairness of inquiry which is already recorded by the Tribunal. (iv) It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22273 WP No. 22681 of 2019 (v) All contentions relating to victimization are left open. (vi) Parties shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru on 14.07.2025 without any further notice. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33