WRIT PETITION NO. 106603 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.E.K.R.T.C.

KALABURGI DIVISION, KALABURGI,

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,

KALABURAGI-585102.

…PETITIONER

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

AND:

SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA S/O. SIDDARAMAPPA,

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR,

R/O. SHANTA NAGAR, JEWARGI

KALABURAGI-585 102, DIST: KALABURGI.

…RESPONDENT

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

S AA YUM BREENDsSADiAYi Egg UMn Site HBRadl NE by E UyN

R

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:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.S.C.Bhuti., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

The notice to the respondent was ordered on 06.11.2023.

The office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

The writ petition is filed to quash the award dated 02.07.2022, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in I.D. No.551/2015, on several grounds as detailed in the memorandum of writ petition.

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 31.10.2007, was visited with the punishment order by reducing two annual increments from the present basic permanently and treating suspension period as not on duty. He raised a dispute in 2015. The Tribunal, by an award dated 02.07.2022, allowed the reference. The Corporation has assailed the said award in the present writ petition.

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.

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care.

The point that arises for consideration is: Should the award of the Tribunal be interfered with?

It is undisputed that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 2007. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2015, after an inordinate delay of nearly 08 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 order of punishment and raises the dispute belatedly without explanation, it must be presumed that he has waived his right. It was further observed that a dispute raised after such a delay becomes stale and ceases to be an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised, it had virtually become stale. The Tribunal overlooked the aspects of delay and laches and failed to take into account relevant considerations. For these reasons, the Tribunal's award is liable to be set aside.

A