IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 4427 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. REHAMATHULLA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

S/O ANWAR SAB,

C/O NAGARAJ GOLLUR,

GANESHNAGAR, 4^TH CROSS,

NEAR LAMBANI CHAL, RANIBENNUR,

HAVERI DISTRICT-581110.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,

Digitally signed

by THEJAS DAVANAGERE-577001

KUMAR N …RESPONDENT

Location: HIGH (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING,

THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Naveen Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Renuka H.R., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. he remained absent from duties from 25.01.1994. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed an order of punishment on 10.09.1994. He filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.3195/1995, and this court disposed of the petition on

06.04.2000, reserving the liberty to raise an industrial dispute.

3. The workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, in Reference No.24/2008. The Labour Court vide order dated 08.06.2016, dismissed the reference. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

5. Counsel for the respondent in presenting her arguments submits that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. She justified the award.

6. By way of reply to this contention, counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of delay does not arise in industrial disputes. He submits that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the reference. Counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be allowed.

7. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

8. The simple point that arises for consideration is, whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference?

9. Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 1994. Strangely, he invoked a writ jurisdiction and filed a writ petition before this court in 1995. However, the petition came to be disposed of in 2000;

despite reserving liberty, the petitioner did not raise a dispute in time. He raised a dispute in 2008. Counting from the date of the punishment order, there has been a lapse of 14 years; from the High Court order, the lapse is eight years.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS.

JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held 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.

11. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute. The Tribunal has overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. The dispute was a stale dispute at the time of adjudication, since it was raised after a lapse of considerable time. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference on the grounds of delay and latches.

12. On the merits of the case, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, specifically that the workman has the habit of unauthorized absence, is supported by the evidence on record. In other words, the Tribunal's finding that the workman is a habitual absentee is well-founded. There is no p