Karnataka High Court
Gurubasava S/O Gurusiddappa ... vs The Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd And Anr on 10 June, 2021
Author: S.G.Pandit And M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO.200039/2016 (S-RES)
Between:
Gurubasava
S/o Gurusiddappa Yeligar
Age: Major, Occ: Asst. Foreman
Mallappa Shaft Sink Section
Incharge Mining Mate BR No.6678
Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur
R/o Gurgunta, Tq. Lingasugur
Dist. Raichur
... Appellant
(By Sri P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, Advocate)
And:
1. The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur
2. The Agent/Dy. General Manager (Min)
The Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd.
Mines Department, Hutti
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur
... Respondents
(By Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, Advocate)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order
of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.207616/2015 dated 05.01.2016
and consequently issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the
impugned order of punishment vide No.Ka.Ni.Ni./ Ma.Sa./
Ou.Sam./Ha.chi.ga./2008 dated 13.03.2008 which is at
Annexure-A by which the appellant has been demoted from the
cadre of Asst. Foreman i.e., G-5 to G-6 cadre and issue a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to extend all the benefits as
if there is no order of punishment as per Annexure-A.
This appeal having been heard and reserved on 03.06.2021
coming on for pronouncement of judgment
this day, S.G.Pandit J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant is before this Court, questioning the
correctness and legality of the order dated 05.01.2016
in Writ Petition No.207616/2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge and prays for quashing the order of
punishment vide No.Ka.Ni.Ni./ Ma.Sa./ Ou.Sam./
Ha.chi.ga./2008 dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure-A).
2. The appellant was working as Assistant
Foreman in the respondent-company. He was in-charge
of mining mate of Mallappa Shaft of respondent mines.
While he was working as such, a charge memo dated
29.12.2007 was issued alleging that even though it was
within the knowledge of the petitioner that the rope of
the cage was not working properly, irresponsibly the
petitioner sent 29 workers in the cage which resulted in
accident, grievously injuring 12 workers, who suffered
bone fractures, which amounted to violation of Standing
Order. The enquiry officer appointed to enquire into the
charges levelled against the petitioner submitted report
dated 24.02.2008 holding the charges proved against
the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent-company
imposed punishment of demotion from the cadre of
Grade-5 Assistant Foreman to the cadre of Grade-6
Head Mestri by order dated 13.03.2008. Questioning
the correctness of the order of punishment, the
petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition
No.207616/2015 and this Court by the impugned order,
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches. Hence, the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard Sri P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao,
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued
that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there
was no delay and it was continuing cause of action. The
appellant is suffering punishment on his demotion. As
such, he was before this Court challenging the order of
punishment. Further, the learned counsel would submit
that the petitioner is treated with hostile discrimination.
In that, the other workmen who were issued with
identical charge memo were either exonerated or
imposed with lesser punishment of withholding one or
two increments. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73
(Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others). Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Having heard the leaned counsel for the
appellant and on going through the material on record,
we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is
justified in rejecting the writ petition solely on the
ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, the order of
punishment of demotion was imposed on the petitioner
by order of punishment dated 13.03.2008 (annexure-A).
Writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was filed only on 17.12.2015 i.e.,
after more than seven years from the date of imposing
punishment. It is not the case of the appellant that he
was not aware of the order of punishment. Immediately
on 04.01.2008, the appellant had submitted
memorandum praying for exoneration from the charges.
The cause of action arose on the date of passing the
order of punishment. The petitioner failed to assert his
right immediately or within reasonable time.
6. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a
discretionary jurisdiction. Such discretionary
jurisdiction shall be exercised judiciously and
reasonably. Delay or laches is one of the factors which
is to be borne in mind by the High Court while
exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. A person whose
right has been infringed or who is aggrieved by the
action of the State should come to the Court at the
earliest or within a reasonable time. One cannot sleep
over his right and approach the Court at his own sweet
will. It is true that there is no hard and fast rule
regarding limitation for filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but one should
approach the Court immediately or within a reasonable
time. Delay and laches is to be determined taking note
of the facts and circumstances of each case as to
whether the party is guilty of laches. If a person
approaches the Court belatedly without proper
explanation, the High Court would be justified in
denying the relief to such persons.
7. In the instant case, there is no explanation
as to why there is inordinate delay of more than seven
years in approaching this Court. The facts and
circumstances of the present case would indicate that
the petitioner slept over his right and allowed the
impugned order to operate against him. Moreover, to
examine the contention of hostile discrimination, no
material whatsoever is placed on record. To urge the
ground of hostile discrimination, the petitioner ought to
have placed on record the charge memo issued to the
petitioner as well as other co-employees and also ought
to have placed on record the order of punishment
imposed to other employees.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its
Chairman & Managing Director and another vs.
K. Thangappan and another reported in (2006) 4
SCC 322 at para 6 has held as follows:
"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors
which is to be borne in mind by the High Court
when they exercise their discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an
appropriate case the High Court may refuse to
invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such
negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right as taken in
conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite
party. Even where fundamental right is
involved the matter is still within the discretion
of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v.
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969)
1 SCC 185]. Of course, the discretion has to be
exercised judicially and reasonably."
9. For the reasons stated to above, the writ
appeal fails and accordingly the same stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
