1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.2461/2012 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. N.R. ANNESHI,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

S/O LATE N. RUDRAPPA,

ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER,

KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,

DAVANAGERE.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER /

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,

DAVANAGERE.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 15.6.1994 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE

ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH

VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Registry to delete the name of Sri.L.Govindaraj, learned

counsel for the respondent from the cause list.

2

2.

In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for

quashing of the order dated 15.06.1994 vide Annexure-C passed

by the respondent and further sought for restoring the increment

with all consequential monetary benefits.

3.

The petitioner was working as a Assistant Traffic

Inspector. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in

framing articles of charges on 22.09.1993 and it was concluded

in imposition of penalty of reducing the basic pay of the

petitioner with one incremental stage with cumulative effect on

15.06.1994. Petitioner filed an appeal on 30.09.2003 before the

appellate authority against the penalty order dated 15.06.1994

and it was rejected on 07.11.2003. In the year 2005, he raised

industrial dispute in respect of penalty order dated 15.06.1994

and not against appellate authority order dated 07.11.2003 and

it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Hubli for adjudication

of points of reference. During the pendency of the reference,

petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the

dispute on the score that he is not a workman in terms of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947(for short, ‘the

Act, 1947) as contended by the respondent-Corporation in the

3

counter statement. Consequently, on 26.05.2009, Labour Court

passed an order dismissing the reference. Thus, petitioner has

presented this petition on 20.01.2012.

4.

Firstly, petitioner has not questioned the appellate

authority order dated 07.11.2003 in which order of disciplinary

authority dated 15.06.1994 is merged. It is to be noted that

petitioner’s claim is stale one. Petitioner has not explained delay

and laches in raising industrial dispute and in filing an appeal on

30.09.2003 against the penalty order dated 15.06.1994. Further,

there is no explanation in presenting the present petition in the

year 2012. At each and every stage, there is delay and laches on

the part of the petitioner in approaching the forum and delay is

not explained. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu

and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others

reported in AIR

2016 SC 3006 at paragraph 20 has held as under:

“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to

refer to a passage form City and Industrial

Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir

Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009) 1 SCC 168},

wherein

this

Court

while

dwelling

upon

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,

has expressed thus:-

4

“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider

whether:

(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves

any complex and disputed question of

facts

and

whether

they

can

be

satisfactorily resolved;

(b) The petition reveals all material facts;

(c) The petitioner has any alternative or

effective remedy for the resolution of the

dispute;

(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty

of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of

limitation;

(f) Gra