ORDER

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

2. The brief facts are these:

The respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 22.02.2003, he was on duty in the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing registration No. F-853 that was plying on the route from Sugganahalli to Ramanagara. The bus came to be checked at Sangabasavana Doddi. It was found that he had failed to issue twelve tickets of three each despite collecting the fare from the passengers who were traveling from Sugganahalli to Sangabasavana Halli. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and the disciplinary authority imposed with an order of punishment reducing one increment with cumulative effect on 05.05.2003.

The respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.136/2009 for adjudication. The Tribunal vide award dated:02.04.2014 condoned the delay and set-aside the order of punishment. 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 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 requires interference by this Court?

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that, the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment back in the year 2003 i.e., on 05.05.2003. Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost six years.

5. Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost six years in raising the dispute. She 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 she 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 Sri.L.Shekar., justified the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

6. 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 he was visited with an order of minor punishment back in the year 2003 i.e., on 05.05.2003. Strangely, he raised the dispute in the year 2009.

The Corporation filed objections and sought for dismissal of the reference on the grounds of delay and laches. However, the Tribunal held that the delay itself cannot frustrate the entire claim of the workman if he proves the victimization and unfair Labour practice by the Corporation. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the delay and laches is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The Tribunal ought to have considered whether sufficient reasons were accorded by the workman to condone the delay. Furthermore, the reasons accorded to condone the delay are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR's case.

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