Karnataka High Court
Sri M.S Papanna S/O Late S Siddegowda vs The General Manager (Transport) on 12 January, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE DATED THIS THE 12T# DAY OF JANUARY, 2012 | BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 8094/2011 (-KSRTO BETWEEN: Sri.M.S.Papanna S/o late S.Siddegowda Aged about 49 years, Ex-KSRTC Driver, B, No. 1917, Channarayapatna, -- K.S.R.T.C Depot. ; Resident of Marudi Viliage, . Gorur Post, Arakalgudu Faluk,: Hassan District. Pe .. PETITIONER (BY sniv.escituianinaicis ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 'rhe General Manager ¢ (Fransport) & Appellate Authors ity, Central Office, K.S.R.T.C ~ KH. Road. Bangalore ~ 560 027. . 2, 'The Divisionai: Controller and - Disciplinary Authority, __. Divisiorial Office, K.S.R.T.C ». 'Hassan -- 573 201. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L.GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES: 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 'CALL FOR RECORDS IN I.D.A.NO.80/2003 ON THE...FILE. OF LABOUR Court, CHICKMAGALORE AND BE PLEASED. TO . SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 03.10.2006 (ANNEXURE-G) oo AND THEREBY ALLOW THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE © PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR | COURT, CHICKMAGALORE, IN IDA NO.80/2003 _ eT en THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY » HEARING ~B' GROUP THIS DAY,: THE Cot URT MADE THE FOLLOWING: a a OKD x Petitioner who has been 'dismis ssed from service by respondent - _ 'corporation by 'oraer dated 15.02.2001 had approached the "Labour "Court, Chickmagalur in I.D.A.No.80/ 2003 by filing an application under section 10(4- A) of the: Industrial, Disputes Act praying for the order of dismiscal being set aside and on said applications being a dismissed has approached this Court by filing this writ ~ petition. © ~ 2. ae he charge levelled against petitioner was that as a driver while driving the vehicle from the break down spot to be Garage without conductor, after necessary repairs along with a mechanic deputed for the said purpose, was checked 'by inspectors and it was noticed that petitioner was carrying 10 : passengers by collecting fare of 71.50 frem each. of them. In - the domestic enquiry conducted, the otiargés were" held proved. As such a dispute was raised before Labour Court. . After recording the evidence of the parties and on considering the rival contentions, Labour Court by its order dated 03.10.2006 dismissed the application filed by the workman. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 'Admittedty: the order of Labour Court was passed on 03.10.2006: and after lapse of five years i.e., 21.02.2011 writ petition has been filed assailing the said order. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been stated by - - petitioner that he was not having any source of income and : was facing financial difficulties and as such he could not -~-pisiue the matter. The delay explained in the writ petition is "neither satisfactory nor acceptable. Petitioner having --
prosecuted the dispute before the Labour Court for three years, the plea put forward with regard to delay. is unacceptable and his silence for a period of 5 years without explaining the cause properly disentitles.the petitioner te any | - relief. The principles of delay defeats equity is applicable. in all force to the facts on hand. It is no doubt true 'that cach 7 day's delay need not be explained and this court would not calculate the same with | "any mathematical precision. However, at the same time it would alse be incumbent upon a person who approaches the Court belatedly to explain the cause which 'may, inspire Some confidence in Court to examine suck: cause. However, the cause shown if it is bereft of facts or it does not amount to reasonable cause, then such cause cannot be examined at all as it is found in the instant case. : Hence: the present writ petition is dismissed on the ~ around of detay: alone without going into the merits of the ease. _ : Sd /-
/ SBN