- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51831 WP No. 9594 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2021 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DEPT., BESCOM, DAVANAGERE-577002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL) (OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE) BESCOM, SANTHEBENNUR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R.JAYANNA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AT AND POST BASAVAPATNA CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577012 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., 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:51831 WP No. 9594 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sanjeev counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mukkanappa S.B., counsel for respondent appeared person. 2. The award dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Hubbali in Ref No.3/2014 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. 4. Mr.Mukkannapa S.B., counsel on instruction submits that the Management reinstated the workman on 13.11.2017. However, the writ is filed in 2021. There is an inordinate delay of almost 4 years in filing the writ petition. Hence, counsel therefore submits that the petition may be dismissed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51831 WP No. 9594 of 2021 5. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care. 6. Suffice it to note that the petitioner is questioning the award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed award in 2017. However, the writ petition is filed in 2021. There is a delay of 4 years in filing the writ petition. A perusal of the averments in the writ petition depicts that no grounds are made about delay and latches. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cause, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and latches. 7. Accordingly, it is rejected. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20