ORDER

Sri.L.Shekar., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 11.12.2006. The petitioner raised a dispute through Union and the same came to be referred to Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in I.D.No.287/2012 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 19.07.2017 rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. 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 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the records with utmost care.

4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference.

5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment on 11.12.2006.

6. Sri.L.Shekar., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Industrial Tribunal has erred in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. He argued by saying that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have considered the case on the merits. Counsel therefore, submits that the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed.

In reply, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. She argued by saying that there was an inordinate delay of six years in raising the dispute. The Tribunal has rejected the claim on the grounds of delay and laches. She drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC

1. Counsel therefore, submits that the petitioner has not made any grounds to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

7. The issue revolves around the delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the delinquent came under a disciplinary inquiry on account of misconduct, and was visited with an order of punishment back in the year 2006 i.e., on 11.12.2006.

Strangely, he raised the dispute in the year 2012.

It is pivotal to note that the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC page 1 has laid down the law about delay and laches. In paragraphs 42.1 to 42.6 and

44, the Apex Court has held as under:

"42.1. An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered by Section 2-A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate Government forms an opinion that “any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended”. The words “industrial dispute exists” are of paramount importance, unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in the near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of r