- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 25951 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S.BASAVAIAH. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, RESIDENT OF VEERASAGARA, MELEKOTE ROAD, OPP. TO VEERABHADRESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, TUMAKURU-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 7TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 7TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TUMAKURU-572101. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 NEAR BHADRAMMA CHOULTRY, TUMAKURU-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2026, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: CAV ORDER Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Yoganna., Additional Government Advocate for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are as follows. The petitioner was engaged/appointed as a watchman on a daily wage basis by the respondents in 1986. It is stated that the respondents illegally terminated the petitioner’s service in 1999. A dispute was raised in Ref No. 16/2001, and the same was dismissed for non- prosecution in 2003. The petitioner gave - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 representation to the respondents with a request to reinstate him into service in terms of the government order dated 04.01.2003. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner raised a dispute in 2016, and the Labor Court rejected the reference on 15.10.2018. The petitioner assailed the award in W.P.No.5644/2019, and the award was set aside, and a remand order was passed. After the remand, the Labor Court rejected the reference on 16.04.2025. Under these circumstances, the present writ is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following order. SRI.A.N.BASAVARAJA V/S. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.22525/2022 DISPOSED OF ON 23.07.2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 4. Heard and pursued the papers with care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award requires interference by this Court. 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not warrant reiteration. It is enough to note that the reference raised by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.06.2003 for non-prosecution. The subsequent application for regularization was also dismissed on 30.08.2007. The petitioner remained silent and did not assail either of these orders before the higher forums. After a lapse of nearly seventeen years, he sought to reopen the issue by raising a dispute against his termination in 1999. The Labor Court, upon an extensive consideration of the material on record, rightly concluded that the dispute was hopelessly belated. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remained 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 workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute. On merits also, the Court correctly held that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his plea of continuous service, since he did not establish completion of 240 days in the service of the respondent-department. Counsel for the petitioner, in the last limb of his submissions, urged that compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. This contention, however, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner raised the dispute after an ordinate delay. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32926 WP No. 25951 of 2025 to be compensated in monetary terms. Resultantly, the writ petition dismissed. Because of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1