IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.25196/2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) AND CHANDRAKUMAR M G S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SARVAJANAGARA, BOMMANAKATTE, VINOBANAGARA PO SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
(BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD:19.8.2015 IN I.D.NO.103/2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBBALLI (ANNEXURE-F) ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is the employer-Transport Corporation and is before this court being aggrieved by the order passed in I.D. No.103/2012 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi. The writ petition is canvassed on the sole ground of unexplained extra-ordinary delay and laches.
The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of delay and laches is as under:-
“10. Issue No.2 : The order of reference refers to the inordinate delay of twelve years in raising the dispute. The principle is established that the point of delay alone cannot be a ground to invalidate the reference. Of course, the delay aspect is the subject matter for explanation by the workman. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions right from the case of Karan Singh Versus Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board reported in 2008-I-LLJ SC page 289 till the recent decisions in the case of KSRTC Davanagere Division Davanagere Versus H.G.Basavanagouda reported in 2013(6) KLJ page 580 and the case of Raghubir Singh Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 LLR Supreme Court page 1075 that it is the duty of the workman to satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in raising the dispute and it is for him to say that the dispute exists for adjudication. As already discussed above the impugned order of punishment is basically illegal and cannot be justified on any count in the eye of law. Such an order which depicts the clear case of victimization of labour cannot be allowed to sustain on the ground of inordinate delay. Added to that, the annual increment is continuing right during the entire service of an employee and it accrues every year. So the workman can very well challenge the denial of annual increment. Above all these, in the case on hand, though there is delay of twelve years the management is in a position to place all the records pertaining to this case for the scrutiny of this Tribunal and they are placed at Exs.M.1 to M.5. It is not the case of the management that because of inordinate delay in raising the dispute the management is not in a position to effectively contest the case of the workman and he is not in a position to substantiate his case with documentary evidence. So it can very well be said that the so called inordinate delay has not made the dispute to become stale. Then the workman has also contended in his claim statement that on 29.7.1993 he submitted an appeal memo before the Managing Director through the Depot Manager Shivamogga. Of course, he has not produced any copy of the appeal memo or any other piece of record to substantiate the same. One other contention of the workman is that since he is in service with apprehension that if he were to challenge the punishment order he would have been subjected to unnecessary harassment accordingly he did not dare to challenge it well in advance by raising the dispute and that is one of the reason for the delay in raising the dispute. The way in which the impugned order of punishment is produced makes me to feel that unnecessary harassment are most likely to an employee in case of challenging any of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. So in my considered view the so called delay of twelve years cannot be considered as a ground to hold that the dispute has become stale. Hence on careful scrutiny of overall facts and circumstances of the case I answer the second issue in the negative.”
3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent who was discharging his duties as a Conductor on 16.03.1993 on the Shivamogga-Bangalore route and en- route when the bus was checked at Tumkur, Stage No.34 it was found that 23+1 passengers were traveling in the bus and out of which he failed to account for six tickets of denomination of Rs.5/- each despite reaching Stage No.34 at Tumkuru and further tickets bearing Nos.126575 to 126580 were also not found with the workmen-Conductor. The checking officials issued the offence memo on the spot and submitted a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report a show cause notice came to be issued and the same was replied by the respondent- workman stating that by oversight he has failed to mention the ticket available and he denied the allegations of any wrong doing. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the reply dispensed with the Domestic Enquiry and proceed to pass the order by imposing penalty of reduction of one increment. The respondent-workman accepted the said punishment and continued in the service.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman suddenly arouse out of his slumber and after an unexplained delay of 18 years sought for reference of the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes’ Act, 1947. The same was referred without reference to the aspect of the extraordinary delay in approaching the authority for relief. That despite the petitioner objecting to the reference on the ground of delay and laches, the Tribunal has proceeded to brush aside the objections and set aside the punishment imposed.
5. On a query the learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that the respondent had refrained from initiating any legal proceedings as he apprehended stricter action by the management. In the opinion of this court the said excuse cannot be appreciated nor is it a legally valid excuse to over look the extraordinary delay of more than 18 years. Probably for a few days, few weeks and few months, it would be understandable. The very excuse set out by the workman would go to probabalise the allegations against the respondent. If the respondent was guilt free and was not involved in any wrong doing, he would have definitely asserted his rights and questioned the punishment imposed. The Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to this facet of the dispute. The reasoning by the Tribunal that the delay requires to be condoned as the procedure adopted is basically illegal cannot be countenanced as there is an inordinate delay. The fact of checking or the charge memo issued are not disputed. If that be the admitted case, it has to be construed that the workman has waived his right to an enquiry in accordance with the regulations.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi passed in I.D. No.103/2012 is set-aside on the short ground of delay and laches.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE