Karnataka High Court
Sri Kumar H M vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
WA No. 1365 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1365 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KUMAR H M
S/O MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
CONDUCTOR, KSRTC 5TH DEPOT
BHEL NEAR, MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 026
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
Digitally signed TRANSPORT CORPORATION
by AMBIKA H B
MYSORE URBAN DISTRICT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MYSORE BY ITS
KARNATAKA DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
MYSORE - 570 001
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.09.2023 MADE IN WP No.43430/2019 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
WA No. 1365 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.R.P.Somashekharaiah for the
appellant.
2. The challenge in this writ appeal is directed against
judgment and order dated 14.09.2023 of learned Single Judge,
whereby learned Single Judge set aside the judgment and award
dated 24.11.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru in
Reference No.1 of 2017.
2.1 The Industrial Tribunal had allowed the said reference
and set aside the order of punishment passed against the
appellant - workman. The punishment imposed on the appellant
was reduction of three incremental stages of basic pay with
permanent effect and further to treat the suspension period of
workman as no duty period.
3. Noticing the facts in the background, the appellant was a
conductor working under the respondent - Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation. While on duty on 11.01.2010, in a bus
plying between Mysuru City bus stand to Bannur, it was found by
the checking squad, when the bus was inspected, that the
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
appellant had not issued tickets to a group of eighteen passengers
traveling from Cauvery Bridge to Bannur. The appellant -
conductor failed to collect the fare of Rs.3/- to be charged from
each of the passengers. At that time there were, in all, thirty
passengers traveling in the bus.
3.1 For the aforesaid misconduct and charge, a
departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman. Finally,
the punishment, as above, was imposed by order dated 30.11.2010
by the Disciplinary Authority. Challenging the punishment
imposed, the appellant approached the Industrial Tribunal at
Mysuru. The Reference was allowed, resulting into filing of writ
petition by the Corporation.
3.2 In the writ petition, it was contended that the Tribunal
was not justified in setting aside the punishment and that the
reference itself could not have been entertained for the reason that
there was a delay of more than six years on the part of workman in
approaching the Tribunal.
4. Learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the
Corporation on the score of delay. Learned Single Judge was of
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
the view that the reasoning supplied by the Tribunal that the delay
would not come in the way of the workman in challenging the
punishment order and that no prejudice would be caused to the
Corporation, was not justified.
5. It is trite principle that a litigant should approach the
court with vigilance and without unreasonable delay. This
proposition applies with equal force to industrial disputes. It is well
settled that any industrial dispute to be adjudicated should be of the
kind which could be considered as an "existing dispute". A dispute
which has become stale may not be entertained. Even on general
principle, the right to relief would be lost when there is
unreasonable and unexplained delay in approaching the court of
law.
5.1 In Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture
Department and another [(2015) 15 SCC 1], the Supreme Court,
while considering the case where workman raises dispute belatedly
and the delay or laches remain unexplained, observed that in such
eventuality it would be presumed that the workman has waived his
right or has acquiesced. In that case, the challenge was to the
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
order of termination by the employer. It was observed that
although no limitation is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 for making reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, the
words "at any time" do not admit that the limitation aspect is
irrelevant and not applicable in respect of the proceedings to be
taken out under the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the
policy of the industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should
not be encouraged.
5.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the order of
punishment was passed in the year 2010 against the
appellant - workman, the appellant approached the Industrial
Tribunal in the year 2017. There is a delay of more than six years.
It was for such long period that the appellant sat tight and did not
do anything to agitate for his grievance. It could be well said that
the dispute had become stale.
5.3 Learned Single Judge was eminently justified to take a
view that the said aspect was overlooked by the Tribunal and on
that ground alone, the award of the Tribunal was liable to be set
aside. The aspect of six years delay in raising the Reference when
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
weighted with learned Single Judge in setting aside the judgment
and award of the Industrial Tribunal and allowing the writ petition, it
brooked no error in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Even as the aforesaid ground is sufficient to uphold the
judgment and order of learned Single Judge, since learned
advocate for the appellant harped to take the court to the merits of
the case, the court examined the said aspect also in the course of
hearing. The Disciplinary Authority while confirming the findings of
the Enquiry Officer inter alia recorded that it was a group of
eighteen passengers to whom the appellant failed to issue the
tickets. The defence of the workman that the said group was in
drunken state, was not liable to be accepted. If that was so, the
appellant was under duty to alight the passengers immediately
from the bus. The bus was a local bus where the appellant was
expected to issue tickets to the passengers without wasting time
upon their embarkment into the bus. The penalty amount was
recovered from the head of the team of the passengers, the tickets
were taken into custody from the conductor.
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
6.1 It was rightly observed by the disciplinary authority that
it was the duty of the conductor to issue tickets to each of the
passengers and it was displayed in bold letters "issue tickets and
go forward" which instructions, the appellant - conductor completely
disregarded and did not issue tickets to the group of eighteen
passengers. The appellant - conductor also signed the charge
memo issued against him agreeing to it. These all were the
relevant documents and material part of the record before the
Enquiring Authorities on the basis of which the proof of the charges
was arrived at.
6.2 It was also stated that the appellant was involved in
ninety six cases of indiscipline and misconduct in the past and
there were two cases which were severe red marked cases.
6.3 For all the foregoing reasons and discussions, even on
merits, the punishment imposed on the workman was entirely
justified and the Tribunal misdirected itself in setting aside the
punishment order.
6.4 Thus, viewed either from the aspect of delay of six
years in raising the Reference before the Tribunal, or considered
NC: 2024:KHC:8788-DB
on the aspect of merits, this court finds that the learned Single
Judge was entirely right in setting at naught the judgment and
award of the Industrial Tribunal which had set aside the
punishment order.
7. The writ appeal stands meritless and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
