The Divisional Controller vs K.P. Venkatesh

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The Divisional Controller of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Shanthinagar (for short ''the Corporation''), has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the Award at Annexure-A dated 23.11.2012.

The respondent had been working in the establishment of the Corporation as a driver. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and it was alleged that he being the driver of the bus bearing No. 1566, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner near Tarikere and dashed the said bus to one Nagarajappa who succumbed to the injuries. After holding an enquiry, he was found guilt of the charges. Therefore, an order of punishment was issued against him withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment was passed on 09.07.1993. The respondent sought conciliation of the matter by filing an application before the competent authority in the year 2008. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, wherein it was numbered as I.D. No. 92/2008. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was held that the disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper. The parties have let in evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation would contend that order of punishment was passed as early as on 9.7.1993. The reference was sought after a long lapse of 15 years in the year 2008. No reasons have been assigned for the delay. He further submits that the charges levelled against the respondent have been proved before the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal has set aside the said order on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce relevant documents pertaining to the accident. It is argued that the claim had become stale when he sought conciliation. The Corporation cannot be asked to produce the documents after a long lapse of 15 years from the date of the accident. On this ground alone, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the reference.

Though the respondent is served, he has remained unrepresented.

As noticed above, the order of punishment was passed on 09.07.1993. Conciliation was sought by the workman after a long lapse of 15 years in the year 2008. The Corporation has opposed the reference before the Tribunal not only on merits, but also on the ground of delay. No reasons have been assigned for the delay of 15 years. After lapse of 15 years, the Corporation cannot be expected to produce the records relating to the accident which had occurred in the year 1991. The claim had virtually become stale.

It is settled that delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In the absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation, a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act cannot be exercised at any point of time and revive the matters, which had since been settled. If on account of the delay the dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have rejected the reference on this ground alone.

In the result, writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The award at Annexure-A dated 23.11.2012 in I.D. No. 92/2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, is hereby quashed. No costs.