- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 9954 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 133. NOW REPRESENTED BY: THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER: KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B.ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAFEEQ, S/O. BAKASHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, K.C.NO.2606, KSRTC KOLAR DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 133. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA., 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:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.R.B.Aneppanavar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Naveen Kumar., counsel on behalf of Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was appointed as a Driver-Cum- Conductor in the Kolar Division in the establishment of Corporation in 2003. On 24.05.2008, he was on duty in the bus bearing No.F-743 that belonged to the corporation. The bus came to be checked by the checking officials. It was found that out of 60+03+23 passengers, eight passengers traveling from Srinivasapura to Punganur cross were neither issued tickets of Rs.2 nor was the requisite fee collected, with an intention to misappropriate the revenue of the Corporation. Hence, he was issued with Articles of charge. The workman submitted his reply. The explanation was not satisfactory, hence the Corporation decided to conduct an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. A second show cause notice was issued to the workman and he submitted his reply. Taking note of the gravity of the misconduct and also the past conduct, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment and reduced the basic pay by one annual incremental stage permanently on 12.08.2009. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised the dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.108/2016. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 13.11.2019 condoned the delay of seven years and set-aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed the award 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 Writ papers with care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation vehemently contended that there is an inordinate delay of seven years in raising the dispute. The Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay and proceeded further in the matter. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law regarding delay and laches. Counsel submitted that he is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches. Counsel therefore, submits that the award is liable to be set-aside. 6. By way of reply, Counsel Sri.Naveen Kumar., 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. He justified the award of the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 7. The issue revolves around the delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the delinquent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment in 2009. Strangely, he raised a dispute in 2016. In the claim statement, he contended that an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the same was not disposed of despite repeated requests, hence there is a delay in raising the dispute. The said contention cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record to show that an appeal was filed and the same was pending. Furthermore, in PRABHAKAR's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized and law is laid down about delay and laches. In paragraph No.42.6 and 44, the Apex Court has held as under: "42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an "existing dispute." In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/ Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted. 44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry." 11. Reverting to the facts of the case, the punishment order was made in 2009, however the workman raised a dispute in 2016. There is an inordinate delay of almost seven years. Therefore, the Tribunal is erred in entertaining the belated reference and has further erred in setting aside the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43222 WP No. 9954 of 2021 order of punishment. Since the dispute is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by counsel appearing for the Corporation. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 12. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.108/2016 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order of punishment dated 12.08.2009 is confirmed. 13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33