- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 23912 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. D.SHANKAR PRABHU SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS 1(A) D.PADMAVATI W/O. LATE D.SHANKAR PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. NO.4-7-8, MANGALAWAR PET, RAICHUR-584101. 1(B) VANI D/O. LATE D.SHANKAR PRABHU, W/O. RAGHUKANT SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. NO.2/33, SULTANPUR, RAICHUR - 584101. 1(C) POLA BHARATI D/O. LATE D.SHAKAR PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O. SUNIL MANOHAR P., WARD NO.17, PLOT NO.05, VISHAL NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, BELLARY-583101. 1(D) D.RANGANATH S/O. LATE D.SHANKAR PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 R/O. H.NO.4-7-8, MANGALAWAR PET, RAICHUR - 584101. 1(E) PRIYANKA ANAND JANADRI D/O. LATE D.SHANKAR PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. NO.1377/A, MAIN ROAD, NEAR SRI.NAGARESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.03, HUNGUND - 587118, DISTRICT BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIPAD V., ADVOCATE FOR 1(A) TO 1(E)) AND: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UCO BANK DIVISIONAL OFFICE KEMPEGOWDA CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560009 (KARNATAKA) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRABHAKAR RAO K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sripad.V., counsel for petitioners 1(A) to (E) has appeared through video conferencing. Sri.Prabhakar Rao.K., counsel for the respondent has appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 2. The petition averments are as follows: The petitioner was a Pigmy Deposit (Laghu Bachat Deposit) Collector in the UCO Bank at Raichur Branch. It is stated that the Pigmy Deposit Scheme was temporarily stopped on 31.12.1983 by the Bank, though it was not abolished actually and permanently. A public notice was published in "Raichur Vani" Kannada Local Daily Paper informing the general public not to make any transactions/ dealings of Bank's Pigmy Deposit Scheme with the petitioner. It is said that scheme exists in all branches except in Raichur Branch. It is contended that by abolishing the Pigmy Deposit Scheme, the Bank illegally terminated the services of the petitioner violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner raised a dispute in accordance with the provisions of the law before the CGIT cum Labor Court, Bengaluru. The Labor Court vide award dated 18.09.2013 rejected the reference. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Sri.Sripad.V., counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the CGIT is erroneous and illegal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 Next, he submits that there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under the I.D Act. The Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the I.D Act to make a reference. Hence, the rejection on the ground of delay is erroneous. A further submission is made that the Bank has utterly failed to prove the alleged misappropriation of Rs.21,850/- by the petitioner. There was no case of misappropriation in any Court of law and no domestic inquiry was held against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law which is mandatory. Counsel submitted that the Bank had not led any supportive evidence of independent witness i.e., any Pigmy Deposit Account Holders to prove the alleged misappropriation. Counsel vehemently contended that the findings given by the Tribunal are contrary to the provisions and not within the frame of law. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle the award passed by the Tribunal is bad in law. Counsel, therefore, submits that the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 In support of his contentions, counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) KULDEEP SINGH V/S. G.M. INSTRUMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES CENTRE AND ANOTHER. (2) UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE (CIVIL APPEAL NO.8258/2009). Counsel Sri.Prabhakar Rao.K., for the respondent justified the award of the Tribunal. Next, he submits that the petitioner was an agent/ deposit collector and was engaged by the Branch Bank on commission basis under the scheme of Lahgu Bachat Deposit Yojana at Raichur. A further submission is made that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,850/-, hence, the matter was investigated by the vigilance department of the Bank and it was found that the petitioner misappropriated the account holders' money and hence he was found guilty. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 Counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner's agency was abandoned from 31.12.1983, however, he raised the dispute in 1991, after a lapse of almost eight years. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal is justified in concluding that there is a delay in raising the dispute. Counsel vehemently contended that the Apex Court has held that the employees of the Bank are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers. He submits that the Tribunal has given a clear finding based on the evidence produced before it and justified in holding that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,850/- collected from the Pigmy account holders. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS V/S. S.N.GOYAL REPORTED IN 2008 LLR 790. (2) UCO BANK, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS V/S. HARDEV SINGH IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.14491/2001. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the misconduct. Suffice it to note that the respondent is a Nationalized Bank having its Corporate office at Kolkata and regional office at Bengaluru. The petitioner was a Pigmy agent engaged by the Bank at Raichur Branch. He was paid commission by the bank on collection of depositors' money. The Bank made an allegation that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,850/- of the Pigmy account holders, on inquiry it was found that he had used the said amount for his personal use. The petitioner was asked to furnish the details of the account holders and accordingly, the petitioner furnished the details on 19.01.1984 (Ex.M.6) in writing admitting that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,850/-. It is pivotal to note that the petitioner executed an indemnity bond on 10.02.1984 (Ex.M.9) admitting financial irregularities. Further the petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 has executed a Deed of Guarantee along with his brother on 10.02.1984. The matter was investigated by the vigilance department of the Bank and it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated the account holders money. It is pivotal to note that the agency was abandoned in 1983, however, the petitioner raised a dispute in 1991. There was a long delay of eight years in raising the dispute. The issue revolves around delay and laches. It is pivotal to note that the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR V/S. 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 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 extenso referred to the material on record and rightly - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40575 WP No. 23912 of 2014 concluded that there is a delay in raising the dispute and on merits, it has been held that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount and rejected the reference. I find no grounds to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44