- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29691 WP No. 39586 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 39586 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: C.L.ADINARAYANAPPA, S/O. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560054. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 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: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29691 WP No. 39586 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. Emergent notice was issued to the respondent. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent, though served, has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor chosen to conduct the case as a party-in-person. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent, Sri C L Adinarayanappa, was employed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 05.07.1999, he was on duty in the bus bearing No. F 5901 that was plying on route Bengaluru to Bagepalli. The bus came to be checked at Varalakonda, it was found that he had failed to issue tickets of Rs. 2 to a group of 8 passengers despite the collection of the fee; these passengers were travelling from Peresandra to Varalakonda. He was issued with Articles of Charge, and he submitted his reply. He was imposed with an order of punishment on 25.10.1999 by withholding one annual - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29691 WP No. 39586 of 2025 increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. After a lapse of almost thirteen years, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.50/2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2022 set aside the order of punishment. However, he directed that he is entitled to relief from 02.02.20213. This Award is now called into question in the present Writ Petition on several grounds set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. It has been vehemently contended that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. Counsel submitted that she is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches. 4. I have heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal warrants interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29691 WP No. 39586 of 2025 6. Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 1999. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2012. There is thus an inordinate delay of almost thirteen years. The Tribunal erroneously entertained the claim of the workman. In my considered view, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar (supra) has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly, with the delay and laches remaining unexplained, it must be presumed that he has waived his right. It is further observed that at the time when the dispute is raised belatedly, it becomes stale and ceases to be an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become stale. The Tribunal overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. The dispute was stale at the time of adjudication, having been raised after a lapse of thirteen years. Hence, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. In my view, the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29691 WP No. 39586 of 2025 is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.50/2012 vide Annexure-A is quashed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52