- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15520 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. C.MOHANKUMAR, S/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sanjeev.B.L., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shekar.L., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 19.02.2002, he was discharging his duties as a Conductor in the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing Registration No.F439 that was plying on route No.90. The bus came to be checked by the checking officers and it was found that the respondent had neither collected fare of Rs.4/- each nor issued tickets to a group of three passengers who were traveling from Gonibedu to Mudigere. The Checking officers made necessary remarks in the way bill; confiscated the un-punched tickets; levied penalty to the ticketless passengers; issued offence to the respondent and thereafter, submitted a detailed report to the disciplinary authority. Based on the said report, the respondent was issued - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 with Articles of charge. He submitted his explanation to the same. The explanation was not satisfactory, hence the Corporation decided to conduct an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Taking note of the findings of the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment and withheld ensuing three increments with cumulative effect on 31.12.2003. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised the dispute and the came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.210/2012. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 28.11.2019 condoned the delay of nine years and set-aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 5. Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation vehemently contended that there is an inordinate delay of nine years in raising the dispute. The Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay and proceeded further in the matter. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law regarding delay and laches. Counsel submitted that he is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches. Counsel therefore, submits that the award is liable to be set-aside. By way of reply, Counsel Sri.L.Shekar., 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the I.D Act to make a reference. He justified the award of the Labor Court. 6. The issue revolves around the delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the delinquent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment in 31.12.2003. Strangely, he raised a dispute in 2012. The workman attempted to contend that the Corporation did not supply the copy of punishment order, thereafter, he obtained the same through RTI and preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, hence he could not approach the Tribunal well in time. The Corporation filed its objection and prayed to dismiss the dispute on the grounds of delay and laches. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the workman and condoned the delay. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. As already noted above, the order of punishment was passed in 2003 and naturally he will be aware of the same and he should have been more diligent in prosecuting the case. This has not been done so. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 and the same was pending. Therefore, the reason assigned to condone the delay cannot be accepted. Furthermore, in PRABHAKAR's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized and law is laid down about delay and laches. In paragraph No.42.6 and 44, the Apex Court has held as under: "42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an "existing dispute." In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/ Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted. 44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry." 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the punishment order was made in 2003, however the workman raised a dispute in 2012. There is an inordinate delay of almost nine years. Therefore, the Labour Court is erred in entertaining the belated reference and has further erred in setting aside the order of punishment. The dispute is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Since the dispute is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by counsel appearing for the Corporation. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43236 WP No. 15520 of 2020 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.210/2012 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The order of punishment dated 31.12.2003 is confirmed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54