MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD BANGALORE Vs. T. KALYANA GOWDA TRAFFIC CONTROLLER (CONDUCTOR) KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dt. 4.10.2010 in ID 121/2008 of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli interfering with the order dt. 1.12.1999 imposing the punishment of reduction of one annual increment of the respondent with cumulative effect for proved misconduct, to modify the same to withholding of one increment for a period six months without cumulative effect and entitling the respondent to monetary benefits with 6% interest thereon from the date when it was denied, has presented this petition.

(2.) THE order imposing minor penalty when subjected to conciliation proceeding ending in a failure report under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID ACT', the State Government by order dt. 24.9.2008 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, whence it was registered as ID 121/2008. Parties having entered appearance, filed their respective pleadings, the Industrial Tribunal framed additional issues, one of which related to whether the claim of the workman had become stale due to delay and laches. The workman was examined as WW -1 and documents of the petitioner corporation marked when confronted to the witness in cross examination. The industrial Tribunal having regard to the material on record and the evidence both oral and documentary held the charge of non -issue of tickets after collection of fare from the passengers proved. While answering issue No.3 on the question of delay observed that the petitioner had not challenged the order of the State Government referring the dispute and therefore there was neither delay nor had the dispute become state and accordingly interfered with the order of punishment in exercise of extraordinary discretion under Section 11 -A of the Act.

(3.) THE Apex Court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred vide In The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, AIR 2000 SC 839 ; Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Vs. Shivalinga, JT (2001) 10 SC 428 , In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. M/s. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 943 , it was observed that if a power is conferred by the statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked, the same has to be done within a reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness.