Karnataka High Court
Basawaraj vs The Managing Director And Anr on 9 September, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270
WP No. 202069 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.202069 OF 2024 (L-ID)
BETWEEN:
BASAWARAJ S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: NOW NIL (WATCHMAN) AT KPTCL,
R/O MALKHED VILLAGE,
TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI.
MALKHED-585317.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. K. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLYING
PREMCHANDRA CO. LTD., (GESCOM) MAIN ROAD,
MR
Location: HIGH
KALABURAGI-585102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,(ELEC)
O & M CIRCLE, GULBARGA ELECTRICITY,
SUPPLYING CO. LRD., (GESCOM)
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270
WP No. 202069 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.B.K.Patil., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these:
It is said that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis for the post of Watchman in GESCOM. He was removed from service on 23.04.2011, on the ground that he had furnished fake marks card. After a lapse of almost ten years, he raised the dispute and the same was referred to the Labor Court, Kalaburagi in Reference No.02/2021. The Labor Court vide award dated 01.03.2024 rejected the reference. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Sri.B.K.Patil., counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that the award of the Labor -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270 WP No. 202069 of 2024 HC-KAR Court in rejecting the reference is incorrect and contrary to the well established principles of Labor Law.
Next, he submits that the respondents have passed a stigmatic order. Hence, domestic inquiry ought to have been conducted.
A further submission is made that the order of removal was made in 2011, however due to a wrong advice and lack of funds, the petitioner was unable to raise the dispute immediately after the removal.
Counsel vehemently contends that there exists an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. However, the Labor Court has erroneously concluded that there is a delay and consequently rejects the claim on the merits of the case. Counsel therefore, submits that the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set-aside.
In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in MARY KUTTY Vs. THE HINDUSTHAN TIMES AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.23371/2001 disposed of on 24.03.2006.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270 WP No. 202069 of 2024 HC-KAR Counsel Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil., for the respondents justified the award passed by the Labor Court. Counsel submits that there is an inordinate delay of almost ten years in approaching the Labor Court. Hence, he submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.
In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions.
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. C.D.RAMAIAH IN W.P.NO.40931/2019 DISPOSED OF ON 16.11.2023.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. H.HIRANNAIAH IN W.P.NOS.19195/2015 AND 12250/2019 DISPOSED OF ON 30.12.2020.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270 WP No. 202069 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that on account of furnishing fake marks card, the petitioner was removed from the service in 2011. Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost ten years.
The issue revolves around delay and laches. It is pivotal to note that the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remained unexplained, it should be presumed that he had waived his right. It is also observed that at the time when the dispute was raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the petitioner, it had virtually become a stale dispute.
Reverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the order of removal was made on 23.04.2011. However, the petitioner chose to challenge the said order after a lapse of almost ten years. There is an inordinate delay in raising the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5270 WP No. 202069 of 2024 HC-KAR dispute. The dispute had become stale as of the date of the adjudication. Hence, the contention that there is no delay must necessarily fail. The Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the reference.
As already noted above, there is an inordinate delay of almost ten years in raising the dispute and the Apex Court has categorically laid down the law that when there is a delay the dispute had become stale as of the date of the adjudication. I find no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Labor Court. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition on the merits of the case, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim directions if any stands discharged.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47