- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11043 WP No. 66952 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 66952 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, NWKRTC HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI, R/BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SUBHAS S/O. NINGAPPA BENDIGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HELPER A, R/O: C/O: GANGAPPA BANAKAR, 3RD CROSS, AYODHYA NAGAR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBLI IN ID NO.26/2007 DATED 31-05-2010 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11043 WP No. 66952 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 31.05.2010 passed in I.D.No.26/2007 by Presiding Officer and Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The primary contention urged by the petitioner in the present petition is that the workman has raised the dispute after lapse of 12 years before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner-Corporation has, in its objections before the Tribunal, taken a contention regarding delay. The Tribunal considering the aspect of delay has recorded the following findings: “16. So far as findings on issue No.2 regarding delay is concerned, it is true that there is some delay, but the government has referred five punishment orders for adjudication and because of this, delay might have been caused. Apart from this, there are 1 Hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11043 WP No. 66952 of 2011 materials to hold that the punishment imposed by the second party respondent against the first party claimant is proper or not. Thus, for all these reasons this tribunal is of the opinion stating that the mater has not become stale. This reference is liable to allow partly and to set aside the punishment order dated 15.5.1995 and to impose the punishment to the first party for the proved misconduct as above. Thus, I answer these two issues accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 3. It is forthcoming that the present case is one where the workman has been alleged to have been unauthorisedly absent between 24.04.1995 and 31.05.1995 i.e. for a period of 37 days. In the said factual matrix, the Authority had imposed punishment of reducing the basic pay of the workman into one incremental stage permanently. The Tribunal interfered with the punishment and imposed penalty of ₹2,000/-. 4. Having regard to the factual matrix of the matter, notwithstanding the rival contentions put forth by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11043 WP No. 66952 of 2011 both the parties, this Court refrains from exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction contained under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21