MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE, NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, BANGALORE Vs. SRI MALLIKARJUNAJAH CONDUCTOR BATCH NO. 165, S/O. LATE KARIBASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dt. 14/10/2010 in I.D. No. 55/09 of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, setting aside the order dt. 11/9/1996, directing withholding of respondent's one ensuing annual increment with cumulative effect, has presented this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER initiated disciplinary action over certain allegation of misconduct leading to the order dt. 11/9/1996 holding the respondent guilty of the misconduct and imposing a minor punishment of withholding one ensuing annual increment with cumulative effect. The workman, through the trade union, initiated conciliation proceeding in the year 2008, which when resulted in a failure report, led to the order dt 1/12/2008 of the State Government referring the points of dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Parties entered appearance, filed their respective pleadings where afterwards, the Industrial Tribunal framed additional issues, of which the 3rd issue related to, whether the claim of the workman was stale on account of delay and laches, since the point referred for adjudication was, whether the dispute raised after the lapse of 10 years was justified, in addition to justification for the order of punishment. Parties let in oral evidence through their witnesses and marked documents. The Labor Court by the award impugned, held that the delay in raising the dispute would not come in the way of extending the relief and on the merit of the charge, held the same not proved and as a consequence, punishment was unsustainable.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that in the claim statement it was alleged that an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority calling in question the order dt. 11/9/1996 and as the workman was awaiting orders thereon, when not passed, led to the initiation of conciliation proceeding in the year 2008 and hence there was no delay. Learned Counsel seeks to sustain the award impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.