- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104860 OF 2024 (L-ID) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF N.E.K.R.T.C., REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, VIJAYAPUR DIVISION, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BHASKAR S/O CHANDRAMAPPA SHINDE, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED DRIVER, R/O: AT. POST: HARNAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.S.R.NAMAZI, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) 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:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Lingaraj Maradi., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. When the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 18.03.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the respondent, it was ordered to be listed on 19.03.2025. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to pass appropriate order on the merits of the case. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent – Bhaskar was a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. While he was on duty, on 05.11.1990, he caused accident due to rash and negligent driving. The bus was dragged to the left side near the bank and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 slowly drove into the waters of Gandagera Tank. Due to the accident, 52 inmates of the bus were injured and one passenger died on the spot. Further, the bus was also severely damaged. The Corporation contended that the workman without taking precaution, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and thereby, caused accident. The Investigating Officer soon after the receipt of the information about the accident went to the accident spot and investigated into the occurrence of the accident. The Investigating Officer filed a detailed report to the Corporation along with the records. The workman was issued with Articles of Charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted the findings holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed an order of punishment reducing the basic pay of the respondent by one incremental stage permanently and to recover an amount of Rs.2,831/- towards damages in 10 equal installments from his salary by order dated 15.03.1997. The workman raised a dispute on 28.07.2016 which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi for adjudication in I.D.No.433/2016. The Tribunal held that domestic enquiry conduced by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Tribunal vide order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 dated:01.02.2023 concludes that the punishment imposed by the Management is not fair and proper and allowed the reference. This Award is called in 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 punishment i.e., reducing the basic pay of the respondent by one incremental stage permanently and to recover an amount of Rs.2,831/- towards damages in 10 equal installments from his salary back in the year 1997 i.e., on 15.03.1997. Strangely, he raised a dispute in the year 2016. There is an inordinate delay of almost nineteen years. The Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay. In my view, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay of nineteen years and entertain the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 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 is raised it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case also, when the dispute was raised by the workman, virtually it had become stale dispute. Therefore in my opinion the Tribunal has overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. For the reasons stated above, the order and the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, they are set-aside. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated: 16.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D. No.433/2016 vide Annexure-A and the Award dated:01.02.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D.No.433/2016 vide Annexure-B are quashed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5083 WP No. 104860 of 2024 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 RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 66