Karnataka High Court
M Narasegowda vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc on 1 March, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.4274 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
Between:
M. Narasegowda
S/o Late M.S.Mariappa
Aged about 45 years
R/at C/o T.Sanjeevaiah
No.319, 2nd Cross
Pipeline, Srinagar
Bangalore - 560 050 ... Appellant
(By Sri.J.R.Thippeswamy, Advocate)
And:
The Chief Traffic Manager
BMTC
Central Offices, K.H.Road
Shanthi Nagar
Bangalore - 560 027 ... Respondent
---
-2-
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court
Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition
No.35369/2010 dated 19.8.2011.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed a writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay.
2. The writ appeal is, also, barred by limitation. There is a delay of 655 days.
3. The writ petitioner was a conductor of a public road transport corporation. There was a disciplinary proceeding alleging that he did not issue tickets to the passengers. Opportunities were offered and ultimately, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service on December 24, 1999.
The order of dismissal was questioned in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered -3- as I.D.No.11 of 2000. In the said proceeding, also, reasonable opportunities were granted to the employee and the learned Judge rejected the reference by the award dated June 28, 2005.
4. The writ petition was filed sometime in 2010. The explanation was that the father and the brother of the writ petitioner were unwell. The Hon'ble Single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that there was no explanation, whatsoever, for late coming to the High Court.
5. The writ appeal is barred by limitation, also. The delay is considerable. The only explanation offered is the financial constraints.
6. We are not satisfied by the conduct of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was not serious about his rights. The Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. -4-
7. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal is dismissed. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB