- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: NAGASHETTY, S/O LATE VEERASHETTY, AGED ABOUT49 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKEDODDI, 4TH CROSS, MANDYA - 571 402. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.S.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.177/2018 BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-workman seeking to quash the impugned award dated 31.10.2019 vide Annexure-A and to direct the respondent-Corporation to restore the increments of the petitioner to its original position and pay all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the imposition of minor punishment of the petitioner are as under: The petitioner was selected and appointed as a driver by the respondent-Corporation on 11.01.2005. 2.1 That on 12.12.2008, the petitioner was driving the bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4022 plying between Mandya and B.R. Hills at about 9-30 hours near Paper Mills at Nanjangud, at that time, one Kumari Ashwini was riding a two-wheeler, i.e., Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-09/EK-435 and the two-wheeler dashed against the cow, thereby the pillion - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 rider fell down towards the left side of the bus. However, the petitioner-driver, without noticing the rider having fallen down, went over the rider, namely Kumari Ashwini. Due to which, she sustained severe injuries and she succumbed to the same. 2.2 When such being the case, the report was submitted and on the basis of the same, Article of Charge was issued, to which the petitioner replied by explaining the facts and denying the allegations so made against him. However, the respondent was not satisfied with the reply, hence, ordered for a domestic enquiry. On conducting the enquiry in a casual manner, the report came to be submitted without extending the opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment by the respondent on 28.02.2011 under which the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced by one incremental stage for a period of five years with cumulative effect and he would not be entitled to any annual increments. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 2.3 Aggrieved by the said minor punishment, the petitioner challenged the same before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which ended in failure. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru for adjudication along with the points of reference. 2.4 To prove the preliminary issue, the petitioner got examined himself as WW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.W1 to W3. On the other hand, respondent did not adduce its evidence, but marked documents as Exs.M1 to M25. 2.5 After hearing the both parties, the preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative as per Order dated 05.08.2019 and the entire claim of the petition was rejected. 2.6 Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order passed at Annexure-A by the tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not correct and it is fabricated, as even according to the claim petition, it was the rider of the two-wheeler who dashed against the cow and fell down, consequently sustaining injuries and it was not the fault of the petitioner. There is no misconduct alleged against the petitioner. So also, the petitioner was not responsible for the accident as well as the death of the lady, i.e., Kumari Ashwini, who fell down from a two-wheeler having dashed against the cow, due to her own negligence. Therefore, he contends that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 3.1 It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the claim petition preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased Ashwini for claiming - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 compensation, the respondent herein, who was a party to the claim petition, had taken up the plea that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who is the petitioner herein and defended its case by filing an objection statement to the said claim petition. Hence, now the respondent had taken a contrary plea in two different petitions before two different Forums, which is not permissible, as the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate in the same matter before two different Forums to suit his requirement. 3.2 It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the enquiry conducted by the respondent is not in accordance with law, because they did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry ordered cannot be sustained. Therefore, when the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Labour Court ought to have held the enquiry to be not fair and proper, which has not been done so, in the present case. Hence, the impugned order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the same is not justified. 3.3 It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the tribunal is not justified in rejecting the dispute raised by the petitioner solely on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the matter and the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal upon its merits. It is also contended by the learned counsel that by imposing minor punishment, the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced by one incremental stage for a period of five years, which is again illegal and arbitrary. 3.4 It is further contended that the tribunal has failed to consider all these aspects in totality and without going into the merits of the matter, the enquiry, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice, has passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 4. Per contra, Smt. S.Nirmala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal. She further contends that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the bus that met with an accident and consequently, the rider of the two-wheeler, namely Kumari Ashwini succumbed to the injuries due to the bus running over her. 4.1 She further contends that the petitioner has not acted diligently and it is due to the act of the petitioner that the death of Kumari Ashwini occurred and so also due to the same, the respondent incurred financial loss. It is also not in dispute that the case is registered against the petitioner for traffic violations and the death having occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and the Traffic Controller has submitted the detailed report to that effect. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 4.2 She further contends that based on the said report, articles of charge was issued to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by following principles of natural justice and on accepting the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment, which is in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference with regard to the award passed by the tribunal. 4.3 Learned counsel further contends that there is gross delay in petitioner approaching the Court for conciliation or the Industrial Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the award passed by the tribunal does not call for interference and the same requires to be sustained. The tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit - V/s- U.P.State Electricity Board and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2562, has given a finding with regard to causing of delay by the petitioner in approaching the Authorities is sustainable. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 4.4 Learned counsel for respondent also relies upon judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sri.H.Hirannaiah v/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in W.A.Nos.341/2021 connected with 330/2021 to substantiate her case that when there is a delay, the rejection of the reference by the tribunal is sustainable. On these grounds, she seeks to dismiss the petition, as no grounds are made out to allow this petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and perused the records. Apparently, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a driver and the occurrence of the accident leading to the death of Kumari Ashwini, who was riding a two-wheeler and however, dashed against the cow and fell off the two- wheeler. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner, so also the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ashwini. It is no doubt true that the respondent had defended the driver in the claim petition before the Motor - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 Accident Claim Tribunal, but does not mean that the criminal prosecution that was conducted was supported by the respondent. 6. The tribunal has considered all these aspects and more specifically on the aspect of the delay in raising the dispute by the petitioner, the tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra with regard to delay and other judgments relied upon by the respondent and rejected the reference only on the ground of delay by the petitioner in seeking reference. 7. It has to be seen whether the petitioner has made any ground to explain the delay in seeking reference or raising the dispute. Upon careful perusal of the impugned award, there is no cogent reasons stated or any explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the delay in raising the dispute. 8. Coming to the aspect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik in Civil Appeal No.13834 of 2024 relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner to canvas his arguments that the respondent cannot take two different stands, which are contradictory in nature; one before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and another before the Reference Court, which would run contrary and would be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. No doubt, the principle of not to approbate and reprobate, is accepted. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has gone solely on the basis of delay in petitioner approaching the reference Court or raising the dispute and accordingly, the reference came to be rejected. Therefore, though the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra no doubt, it is a true and accepted principles, but in the present facts and circumstances, the onus is upon the petitioner to explain the delay, which he was unable to do and satisfy the tribunal. It is also not forthcoming before this Court that except the mere - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 statement at the time of argument that the petitioner was awaiting the out come of the criminal case. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to accept the said statement for the delay, which has been rightly considered by the tribunal while rejecting the reference. 9. Under the circumstances, in view of the judgment stated supra relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent and also the Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, the petitioner, who was very well aware of the punishment imposed on him, could have raised the dispute at the earliest point of time, but having slept over the matter for more than six years, he cannot be shown leniency, as it is a well-established principle that a person who does not exercise his rights and sleeps over the matter, cannot be shown indulgence or any sympathy in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the tribunal. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34002 WP No. 9020 of 2021 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15