##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6161

WP No. 106053 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 106053 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC,

REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE,

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURGI-585102

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. BHEEMAPPA S/O R. BASAPPA

AGE. 65 YEARS,

OCC. TRAFFIC CONTROLLER/ RETIRED

R/0: 25^TH WARD, KANCHIGAR PETH,

NEAR LINGANATH BAVI, HOSAPETE,

DIST: BALLARI-583 201.

…RESPONDENT

S AA YUM BREENDsSADiAYi Egg UMn Site HBRadl NE by E UyN R (BY SMT. KALPANA T. M., ADVOCATE)

DESHNURLHCKo AOIcG RUaH Nt Ri Ao Tn

T

O:

AFKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS

UNDER:

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6161

WP No. 106053 of 2022

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Sri.S.C.Bhuti., counsel for the petitioner and

Smt.Kalpana.T.M., counsel for the respondent have appeared in

person.

2. The writ petition is filed to quash the award dated

09.02.2022, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in I.D.

No.307/2015, on several grounds as detailed in the

memorandum of writ petition.

3. The short facts are as follows:

The respondent was employed as a conductor in the

establishment of the Corporation. He was subjected to

disciplinary proceedings and, by order dated 30.03.2000, was

visited with the punishment order by reducing one annual

increments from the basic pay with cumulative effect. He raised

a dispute in 2015. The Tribunal, by an award dated 09.02.2022,

allowed the reference. The Corporation has assailed the said

award in the present writ petition.

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several

contentions.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6161

WP No. 106053 of 2022

HC-KAR

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an

inordinate delay in raising the dispute. It is argued that the

award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture

Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. 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.

Counsel for the respondent justified the award. She

submits that there is no provision restricting the period for

raising the dispute under the I.D Act. The Law does not prescribe

any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its

power under the I.D Act to refer. Counsel further submits that

the Corporation has not led evidence and the delay alone cannot

be a ground to reject the claim, hence, she submits that the

matter may be remanded.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers

with utmost care.

6. The point that arises for consideration is: Should the

award of the Tribunal be interfered with?

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6161

WP No. 106053 of 2022

HC-KAR

7. It is undisputed that the respondent was visited with

an order of punishment in 2000. Strangely, he raised a dispute

only in 2015, after an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years. The

Tribunal erroneously condoned the delay. In my considered view,

the Tribunal has erred in its approach. It has wrongly concluded

that the Corporation had not produced documents in support of

the punishment, and equally erred in holding that the

Corporation failed to produce documents to calculate the delay.

The Tribunal has thus failed to have regard to the relevant

considerations. The reason is apparent: when a claim petition is

filed challenging the punishment order, the date of the

punishment itself is a material factor for determining delay and

laches. Moreover, the order in W.P.No.82293/2011 does not

apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar (supra)

has categorically held that when a workman does not agitate

against the o