- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 26271 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE, WEST DIVISION/REGION BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, B.M.T.C., SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027 NOW REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. YASHODHA G., D/O. T.GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO 36, 1ST STAGE, SSR LAYOUT, NEAR BMTC 35TH DEPOT, KODIGEHALLI POST, KANNAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 112. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA SWAMY S.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 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: ORAL ORDER Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Siddeswara Swamy S.B., counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working in the establishment of the Corporation as a conductor. She remained unauthorizedly absent from 09.08.2014 onwards without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. She caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. The Traffic Inspector, taking note of the unauthorized absence, submitted a report to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager submitted a detailed report and issued a call notice calling upon the respondent to join - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 the duty. Despite the same, the respondent did not join the duty. The disciplinary authority issued articles of charge. The respondent did not submit the reply. Having no other option, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The corporation rendered its evidence and marked the documents before the inquiry officer. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show-cause notice was issued. The respondent did not respond to the notice. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 10.08.2015 and dismissed her from service, treating the period of absence from 09.08.2014 as not on duty and not entitled to the gratuity benefits for the said period. 3. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.09/2020. The Labor Court held that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court passed an award dated 15.03.2023 setting aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has challenged the Labor Court's award in this writ petition on several grounds, as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers with care. 5. The following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale? 2. Whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference by this Court. 6. The facts are sufficiently said, and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was subject to an order of punishment in 2015. Strangely, she raised a dispute after five years. The Labor Court erroneously condoned the delay. This is erroneous. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015)15SCC1 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. In the present case, the punishment order was passed on 10.08.2015. However, the dispute was raised in the year 2020. There is an inordinate delay of almost five years. Hence, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 erroneously condoned the delay. In my view, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the dispute on the grounds of delay and laches. 7. On the merits of the case, it is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds. The Labor Court condoned the misconduct. This is incorrect. The Labor Court overlooked the misconduct, finding the workman's narrative sufficiently probable to warrant condonation. I may venture to say that the finding that the workman's account was probable and acceptable is perverse. 8. It is noted that the Labor Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process of law and following the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50730 WP No. 26271 of 2023 principles of natural justice. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside. 9. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 11.08.2022 on the domestic inquiry is quashed. The award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Labor Court Bengaluru, in I.D.No.009/2020, is quashed. The punishment order dated 10.08.2015 is confirmed. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4