ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI)

Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Nagarathna., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.L.Shekar., for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The respondent Ramaiah was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 02.04.2004, he was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing Registration No.F6801 that was plying on route No.17 - Bannerghatta to Anekal. The checking inspectors subjected the said bus for checking at Indlavadi Cross at about 18:20 hours and it was found that, there were sixty-five adult passengers traveling in that bus and the respondent had neither issued tickets nor collected the requisite fare of Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) each to a group of twelve passengers traveling from Jakkanahalli to Indlavadi Cross and also from another group of five passengers traveling from Jakkanhalli to Indlavadi. The Checking Inspectors issued offence memo to the respondent and he acknowledged the same and imposed penalty to ticketless passengers. The respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings. He was issued with articles of charge and he submitted his reply to the same. The explanation of the respondent was not satisfactory. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer and he submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. He was issued with show cause notice furnishing the findings of the Inquiry officer. He submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the material evidence on record passed an order of punishment on 21.12.2004 reducing the basic pay of the respondent by four incremental stages permanently.

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru for adjudication in I.D.No.110/2013. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:17.03.2020 set-aside the order of punishment. The Tribunal also ordered that the workman is entitled for the reliefs arising out of setting aside the punishment order. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in raising the dispute. 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. Learned 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.

By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel for the respondent justified the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

4. The following points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale?

2. Whether the award of the Tribunal require interference by this Court?

5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that, the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceeding for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment back in the year 2004 i.e., on 21.12.2004. Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost nine years. The Corporation filed objections and sought for dismissal of the ref