- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 20086 OF 2022 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (EARLIER KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD) MADIKERI-571201, KODAGU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: CHIDANANDA, S/O. LATE DODDAMARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. HOSARAMANAHALLI, BOLLANAHALLI POST, BILLIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. CLAIMING TO BE A WORKING AS DAILY WAGES LINEMAN, KEB, MADIKERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Sri.B.S.Nagaraj., counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The award dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Labor Court, Madikeri in I.D.R.No.02/2014 is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Labor Court. 4. The short facts are these: The first party filed a claim statement in 2014 contending that he is a workman and he was appointed as a Store Attendant in Division Office, Madikeri on 01.11.1995. After six months, he was transferred to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 Kushalnagar Division and worked there for fifteen days as a Lineman. Thereafter, he was moved to Koodlipet Sub- Station and worked there for six months as a Lineman. Again, he was transferred to Alur-Sidapur Sub-Station and worked there upto 1999. In 2000, he was transferred to Napoklu Sub-Division and worked upto 07.06.2001. It is contended that on 08.06.2001, he was refused work by oral orders by the Officer in-charge of Napoklu Sub-Division on the instructions of the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Madikeri. The first party contended that while recruiting him, appointment order was not issued and the transfer orders were also not issued in writing during the tenure of his service from 01.11.1995 to 08.06.2001. It is said that all the transfer orders were made orally and he was providing salary of Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of oral refusal of work on 08.06.2001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 The first party in paragraph 5 of the claim statement has specifically contended that he had approached the Management many times to know the reasons for his refusal of work, however, the Management verbally assured that he will be taken back to work shortly. Among other grounds and seeking condonation of delay, he filed the claim petition. The Management - CESCOM filed objections to the claim petition and specifically denied the relationship of employer and employee, they contended that the first party is not a workman on daily wages as a Lineman represented by Karnataka State Government Daily Wage and Royalty Workers Union. The Management specifically contended that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The parties led oral evidence, however, they did not furnish any documentary evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 17.02.2022 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 allowed the reference. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Labor Court is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale? 2. Whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference? 7. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to delay and laches and setting aside the termination order and reinstatement. Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., for the Management in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that there is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 an inordinate delay of almost thirteen years in raising the dispute. By way of reply, counsel Sri.B.S.Nagaraj., 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. The submission about delay and laches is noted with utmost care. One of the issue relates to delay and laches. As per the claim statement, the first party contended that there was a oral refusal of work in 2001. Strangely, he raised a dispute in 2014. There is an inordinate delay of almost thirteen years. 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 for a long time and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 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 first party, it had virtually become a stale dispute. Suffice it to note that the first party contended that he was orally requesting the Management to know the reason for refusal of work and there was verbal assurance by the Management to take him back to work. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention. The said contention must necessary fail. The reason is simple. There is nothing on record to show that representations were made by the first party and there was a verbal assurance by the Management to take him back to work. In my view, the reference is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches itself. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Labor Court has unnecessarily taken pains to place reliance on the decisions and to discuss about relationship of employer and employee. I have perused the award with utmost care. What was required to be considered is whether the first party was a workman or not. In the claim statement, the first party has contended that the appointment order was not issued to him and no transfer orders were issued in writing during his tenure of service. As already noted above, the management had seriously disputed that the first party was not a workman and he was never engaged by them. Taking note of cross examination of MW1, the Labor Court concluded that the first party is a workman. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. There is nothing on record to show that the first party was a workman and discharged duties as a Lineman during the relevant point in time. 8. Lastly, counsel Sri.B.S.Nagaraj., submits that the Labor Court vide award dated 28.11.2014 had passed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 the ex-parte award. The Management assailed the ex- parte award in W.P.No.8759/2015. This Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 remanded the matter. Counsel vehemently contended that while remanding the matter, this Court had specifically directed the Management to furnish the documents, however, the Management did not furnish documentary evidence and the Labor Court is justified in allowing the reference. The remand order is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-C. The relevant documents were placed on record in the earlier Writ Petition. As it was an ex-parte award, the award was set-aside and the matter was remitted to the hands of the Labor Court for fresh consideration after hearing the parties. Hence, the contention that there was a direction for the Management to furnish the document cannot be accepted. As already noted above, there was an inordinate delay of almost thirteen years in raising the dispute and in my view, the dispute had already become stale. The Labor - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42048 WP No. 20086 of 2022 Court ought to have rejected the claim petition on the grounds of delay and laches. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Labor Court, Madikeri in I.D.R.No.02/2014 vide Annexure-E is quashed. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37