STATE BANK OF MYSORE, CONSTITUTED UNDER v. MR. MOHAMMED KALLEMULLA

MR. MOHAMMED KALLEMULLA, SON OF SRI. KUTHUBIDIN SAHIB, GARIBI QUARTERS, POST KALKUNI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571421. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR 1(A) MR. JAI BUNNISHA (ALIAS YASMIN), W/O. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, GARIBI QUARTERS, P.O.KALKUNI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571424. 1(B) MRS. SAMEENA BANU W/O. ILIYAS PASHA, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU. 1(C) MRS. UMEERA BANU, W/O. MANSOOR, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA, KAUDHALLI VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 1(D) MRS. SAHERA BANU W/O. PAPPU, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KELEEMULLA, BENGALURU. 1(E) MRS. HEENA KAUSAR, W/O. SADIQ, D/O. MR. MOHAMMED KELLEMULLA, RAJENDRA NAGAR, MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A, B & D)-ABSENT; R1(C & E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Sri.Mohan Kumar K., counsel on behalf of Smt.K.Subha Ananthi, for the petitioner appeared in person. When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1(A, B & D), either personally or through video conferencing. The petition was listed on

29.06.2026, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondents. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the respondents, it was ordered to be listed today. Today, the petition is listed, as already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1(A, B & D), this Court deems it appropriate to pass orders on the merits the case. Notice to respondent No.1(C) and (E) was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that they are served and unrepresented. Respondent No.1(C) and (E) have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conduct the case as a party-in-person.

2. The brief facts are these: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR The respondent, was employed as a peon in the petitioner Bank. He came under disciplinary proceedings for an act of misconduct. He was issued with Articles of Charge. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted the findings holding that the charges are established. The disciplinary authority discharged respondent with superannuation benefits on 16.12.1999. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:17.08.2000 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the same he preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. He raised a dispute before the CGIT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by Bank is fair and proper. The CGIT vide order dated:08.01.2013 allowed the reference. This Award is now called into question in the present Writ Petition on several grounds set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel petitioner several contentions. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR raising the dispute. It has been vehemently contended that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. Counsel submitted that he is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care.

5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal warrants interference.

6. Suffice it to note that the respondent was visited with an order of punishment in 1999. He preferred an appeal and also the writ petition. The appeal was rejected in 2000 and the petition was dismissed in 2005. The respondent did not raised the dispute assailing the order of punishment before the Tribunal or the Labor Court at an appropriate time. Strangely, he raised a dispute only in 2007. There is thus an inordinate delay. The Tribunal erroneously entertained the claim of the respondent. In my considered view, the Tribunal could not have - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR entertained the reference. The reason is apparent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar (supra) has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly, with the delay and laches remaining unexplained, it must be presumed that he has waived his right. It is further observed that at the time when the dispute is raised belatedly, it becomes stale and ceases to be an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become stale. The Tribunal overlooked the aspect of delay and laches. The dispute was stale at the time of adjudication, having been raised after a lapse of several years. Hence, the Tribunal could not have entertained the reference. In my view, the Tribunal failed to have regard relevant considerations and disregarded material aspects. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by the counsel for the petitioner.

7. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:36054 WP No. 36918 of 2013 HC-KAR

8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated

08.01.2013 passed by the CGIT-Cum-Labor Court, Bengaluru, in C.R.No.142/2007 vide Annexure-N is quashed. The order of dismissal is confirmed.

9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34