- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.16804 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANEPPANAVAR RAMESH BASETTEPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1(A). SRI S.PRAKASH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SMT. S.VIJAYASHANTHI, W/O. S.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(B). HARSHITHA P., D/O. S.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. S.VIJAYASHANTHI. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.2590/1, DANDU ROAD, KUPPASWAMY MUDALIYAR LAYOUT, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. …RESPONDENTS (R1(A) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, R1(B) IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER) 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.Aneppanavar Ramesh Basetteppa., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Notice was issued to the respondents. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondents are served and unrepresented. The respondents, though served, has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor chosen to conduct the case as a party-in-person. 2. The short facts are these: The deceased Sri.S.Prakash - was working as a Artisan in the establishment of the Corporation. On the alleged - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 unauthorised absence from 03.05.2011 to 24.07.2012, an Article of Charge was issued to the workman. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted findings holding that the charges are proved, and the workman was dismissed from service on 24.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute before the Labor Court in I.D.No.25/2018. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 15.09.2021 partly allowed the claim petition. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is filed on several grounds as 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 Labor Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. Counsel submitted that he is not urging any contentions on the merits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 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 Labor Court warrants interference. 6. Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 24.07.2012. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2018. There is thus an inordinate delay of almost six years. The workman contended that he had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, explained the delay on that basis. Although the Labor Court observed that the workman had not produced any material to establish that he had filed such an appeal or that he had raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, it nevertheless condoned the delay. The Labor Court held that the workman's inaction in awaiting the outcome of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority constituted a justifiable reason for raising the industrial dispute - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 after a delay of four years. The reasoning is untenable. The Labor Court erroneously entertained the claim of the workman. In my considered view, the Labor Court 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 Labor Court overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. The dispute was stale at the time of adjudication, having been raised after a lapse of six years. Hence, the Labor Court could not have entertained the reference. In my view, the Labor Court failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by the counsel for the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32620 WP No. 16804 of 2022 7. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Labor Court, Kolar, in I.D.No.25/2018 vide Annexure-E 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 MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36