IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.19442/2015(L - KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
H.M. SIDDARAMESSHWAR S/O H.M. SHADASHAKARAIAH ADULT C/O. H.M. MALLAIAH NEELAMMANA TOTA P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE – 577 004. ... RESPONDENT (SRI. H.M. SIDDARAMESSHWAR - RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 21.01.2014 IN I.D.NO.237/2009 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R On 14.06.2019, following order was passed:
“None appears for the respondent.
If there is no representation on the next date of hearing, petitioner would be heard.”
2. Today also none appears for the respondent.
3. The respondent-workman in a dispute proceedings, who was punished with a penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect on the charges that he had misappropriated petitioner’s Corporation money in not issuing tickets to the passengers. The respondent-workman raised dispute on 25.04.2019 in respect of imposition of penalty dated 29.02.1988, whereas, the Tribunal has passed the following order:
“Reference bearing No.Ka.E. : 422 : IDG : 2009 dated 25.04.2009 under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under Secretary attached to the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby allowed.
The impugned order of punishment bearing No.KST : DLR : D-2 : 1407 : 200 : 87-88 dated 29.02.1988 of the Disciplinary Authority withholding ensuing one annual increment of the first party workman with cumulative effect is hereby set aside. The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits which are denied consequent upon the impugned order of punishment. The management shall work out the admissible monetary benefits which are denied consequent upon the impugned order of punishment and extend the admissible monetary benefits to the workman without any interest within six months from the date of publication of this award.
In the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Copy of this award be sent to the Government for publication as contemplated under section 17-A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondent-workman in raising the dispute. Issue No.2 as framed by the Tribunal reads as under:
“2. Whether the dispute raised by the workman after the expiry of eleven years from the date of the impugned order of punishment is justified?”
5. The Tribunal has considered the delay issue in paragraph No.12. Even though, the Tribunal recorded that the petitioner-Management has not disputed the contention relating to Memorandum of Appeal vide Ex.W.10, the Management did not have any copy of Memorandum of Appeal. The respondent has also not produced any material to show that such Memorandum of Appeal that has been presented in the office of the petitioner-Management and what has been placed on record is only Ex.W.10 and copy of the Memorandum of Appeal. In the absence of necessary material to show that respondent-workman has presented the Memorandum of Appeal for condoning the delay of eleven years by the Labour Court, is not fair and proper. Therefore, on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the respondent-workman in raising the dispute, award of the Labour Court dated 21.01.2014 is set aside.
Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-