- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5881 WP No. 82822 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 82822 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, HUBLI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: I.R. NADAF C/O. KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, ROOM NO. 13, FIRST FLOOR, KSRTC OLD BUS STAND, HUBLI. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5881 WP No. 82822 of 2013 ORAL ORDER Sri. Prashant Hosamani, counsel for the petitioner, appeared in person. A notice was issued to the respondent. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent, I.R. Nadaf, was working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with an Article of Charge alleging that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. He submitted his reply and denied the charges. Not satisfied with the reply, he was subjected to a domestic inquiry. The inquiry officer was appointed and he submitted the findings holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed an order of punishment on 29.09.2000. The workman raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in I.D.No.125/2005. The Tribunal, vide the award dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5881 WP No. 82822 of 2013 24.08.2010, set aside the order of punishment. This Award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. The simple point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference. 5. Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of minor punishment in 2000. Strangely, he raised a dispute in the year 2005. There has been an inordinate delay of almost five years. The Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay by saying that the length of time cannot come in the way of the dispensation of justice. The reason is untenable. In my view, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay of five years and entertained the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5881 WP No. 82822 of 2013 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. The Tribunal has overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. Moreover, setting aside the order of minor penalty is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to set aside the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is absolute, and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal unless there is a perversity and victimization. In the present case, there is no perversity and victimization. Hence, setting aside the order of minor punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and so, it is set aside. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5881 WP No. 82822 of 2013 I.D.No.125/2005 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The order of minor punishment dated 29.09.2000 is confirmed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and the interim order, if any, granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41