- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54217 WP No. 9219 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9219 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI M RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SIDI HOSAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560027 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54217 WP No. 9219 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Kantharaja V., counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sanjeev B.L., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The award dated 03.05.2018, passed by the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.09/2017, is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was a conductor in the establishment of the Corporation, and he was visited with a punishment order on 11.12.2008 for misconduct. After a lapse of nine years, he raised a dispute in 2017. There was an inordinate delay of nine years in raising a dispute. 5. Sri. Kantharaja V., counsel, submitted that there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54217 WP No. 9219 of 2021 the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that the Labour Court erred in dismissing the claim petition. 6. Sri. Sanjeev B.L., counsel for the Corporation, in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of 09 years in raising the dispute. He drew the attention of the Court to the law laid down by the Apex Court and prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from service in 2008. The dispute was raised in 2017, which goes to show that he has slept on the matter for many years. The respondent failed to exercise due diligence over the matter for many years. The Court’s finding that the delay's significance should be weighed against the case's merits is incorrect; this improperly mixes procedure with substance, bypassing the crucial first step of examining the cause of delay. The finding that an industrial dispute can be raised at any time, irrespective of the delay, is unsustainable in law and contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Prabhakar’s case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54217 WP No. 9219 of 2021 8. 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 laches remain 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. 9. The petitioner did not take prompt steps to initiate the action and has demonstrated a lack of diligence. Furthermore, the petitioner remained absent from duty from 07.02.2005 to 20.11.2007 for a period of two years, nine months. It was contended by the petitioner that a leave application was submitted, but this assertion lacks evidentiary support. The petitioner has failed to establish sufficient grounds to set aside the punishment order. The petitioner's contentions lack merit and do not justify setting aside the award. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54217 WP No. 9219 of 2021 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12