Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Inordinate Delay In Raising Disputes Renders Them Stale – Karnataka High Court Set Aside Industrial Tribunal Award

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani, has set aside an award by the Industrial Tribunal, emphasizing the impact of delay and laches in raising industrial disputes. The case involved the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the Tribunal’s decision which had previously overturned a disciplinary action against a former employee.

The Court, in its judgment dated November 16, 2023, highlighted the principle that “an inordinate delay in raising the dispute” can render the dispute “stale” and unworthy of consideration. The observation came in light of the respondent, a former driver of KSRTC, raising a dispute against his punishment seven years after it was imposed.

Justice Mulimani, in her decision, reiterated the established legal principle that the existence of an industrial dispute and the timely raising of such disputes are critical to their adjudication. The Court cited the Apex Court’s decision in ‘Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another’ to underline the notion that industrial disputes should not be raised after considerable lapses of time.

The original disciplinary action, dating back to 2003, involved the respondent driver being punished for carrying unauthorized passengers. This punishment was initially set aside by the Industrial Tribunal in 2018, only to be reinstated by the High Court’s current judgment.

Smt. Renuka H.R., the advocate representing the petitioner, KSRTC, focused her arguments on the extensive delay and its implications, refraining from delving into the merits of the case. The respondents, the legal heirs of the deceased driver, were unrepresented.

Date of Decision: 16 November, 2023

KARNATAKA VS  C.D.RAMAIAH .etc

Similar News