- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6700 WP No. 100641 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100641 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF N.E.K.R.T.C., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HOSPET DIVISION, HOSPET-583 201, THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.K.R.T.C. SARIGE SADANA, KALBURGI-585 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: N.J. DEVENDRAPPA S/O J. ISHWARAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: DOCKING IN DEPOT, R/O: H.NO.2, F-25TH WARD, BHEEMANNA COMPOUND, ISHWAR NAGAR, HOSPET-583 201. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KALPANA.T.M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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:6700 WP No. 100641 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri.Madanmohan M.Khannur., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kalpana.T.M., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent, N.J.Devendrappa was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed an order of punishment on 30.08.2006. The workman raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in I.D.No.270/2015. The Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Tribunal, vide the order dated 11.08.2022, 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 respective parties urged several contentions. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6700 WP No. 100641 of 2025 Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. He argued by saying that Tribunal has erred in concluding that the Corporation has not furnished any documents. He vehemently contended that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR’s case. By way of reply to this contention, counsel for the respondent submits that the question of delay does not arise in industrial disputes. She submits that the Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly set-aside the order of punishment and the same does not require any interference. Counsel, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Heard the arguments 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 punishment in 2006. Strangely, he raised a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6700 WP No. 100641 of 2025 dispute in 2015. There is an inordinate delay of almost nine years. The Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay. In my view, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay of nine 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 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. Furthermore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Corporation has not furnished any documents is also untenable. The reason is simple. The dispute was a stale dispute at the time of adjudication, since it was raised after a lapse of nine years, hence, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. In my view, the Tribunal failed to have regard to the relevant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6700 WP No. 100641 of 2025 considerations and disregarded relevant matters. 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 Order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in I.D.No.270/2015 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The order of punishment dated 30.08.2006 is confirmed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of 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 MRP,RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59