Disposed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri. Dastagir Sab

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2018WP/64580/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records a settlement in a writ petition challenging an industrial dispute award. The High Court Lok Adalat recorded an agreement for the respondent's reinstatement as a fresh trainee without back benefits for the disputed service period, before Bengaluru Bench on 05.09.2018.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded: Respondent to be reinstated as a fresh trainee, not entitled to benefits for service period 28.04.2008 to 07.05.2013.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2018)

��

��

��^��

��

��

!�

��

�� !��"��"�

#��

��$%� �� &��$�%'(�$ �� $(�$� )�%� ��+�$&($&'&% &��,-�) '� �!)&.��+��..)/&$� ����&% $��..)/&� �!�% !)%�0�$��$)0&��%�� #�%0��$&�1��"��

¶12

�#-��2 ��!+& !��%�%�*��3�/� &��

¶13

��4

¶14

�$)��4�' �0)$��,� ��5�!),��,��,� �0&��,�6 ��-&�$'�� 7&%�� $�-�%�(& &� 56�60��7)��0&��%��' � �)%0�'�06$6��6�� ��)/!6$�4)' $)/ 8�� 4��

¶15

�#-��$)��!&��$*��3�/� &��

¶16

�9��:��4�;��<��"��:��9��;��:� ��4��*��=��>��?;��9��9��5�;>��4��4��4�

¶17

¶18

4��4��@��4�#=��9��4��A;4>��1��4��4� ��4��>��::����#�;��;���5=�;�;��4�� @�7�4��B;��C>D��4��4�4��4��@�� 4�#=��9��4��A;4>��1��4��4��4��>� �::��#�;��;��*�5=�;�;��4��@�7�4�� ;B��C9D��

¶19

�9��5��>��:�� #�:��4��:��#��>��:��4�#=��9��;��*� �9��:��>��4��4��

¶20

��

¶21

�!)'�+$) �(& ) )�%�)'�.)�&��/!��&%0)%0� !&��+�$��(�''&��,-� !&�4)' $)/ �

¶22

A6�0&�1��4��%��$&')�)%0��..)/&$*��,�6$��6$ *�5-'6$6�� &��

¶23

��@��%��@��)%��4��@��3)�&��%%&E6$&�C9D��%��C>D� $&'(&/ )3&�-��

¶24

�� . &$�%&0� )� )�%'*� !&�(�$ )&'�!�3&��$$)3&�� '& �&2&% ��//�$�)%0� �� !&�'& �&2&% � !&�(& ) )�%&$�1� �� !�'��0$&&�� $&)%' � &� !&� $&'(�%�&% �1�+�$�2�%�)% ��'&$3)/&��'��.$&'!� $�)%&&��%�� !� � !&�$&'(�%�&% �1� +�$�2�%�+)��%� �,&�&% ) �&��.�$��%-��)%��.�,&%&.) '�.�$� !&�(&$)��.�'&$3)/&� $&%�&$&��.$�2�� "��@�)%�.6��%��.)%��'& �&2&% ��.�/��)2��.� !&�$&'(�%�&% ��1�+�$�2�%��%�� !&�$&'(�%�&% �1�+�$�2�%�!�'��0$&&�� !&�

¶25

'�2&�)%� !&��,�3&� &$2'��A�)% �5&2��)'�.)�&��%�,&!��.��.� !&�(�$ )&'� �� !)'� &..&/ ��

¶26

¶27

@�� //�$�)%0�-� !)'��$) ��& ) )�%�.)�&��,-� !&��$(�$� )�%�)'��)'(�'&��.� 2��).-)%0� !&��+�$�� &��@��%��@��(�''&��,-� !&�4)' $)/ � A6�0&�1��4��%��$&')�)%0��..)/&$��,�6$��6$ *�5-'6$6�)%��4�� @�3)�&��%%&E6$&�C9D��%��C>D�$&'(&/ )3&�-��

�"#$� ��

�"#$� ��

�,3F�

FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT

¶33

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT

¶34

W.P. NO. 64580/2016

¶35

(LOK ADALATH NO. 6467/2017)

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

¶38

... Petitioner/s

¶39

AND:

¶40

SRI. DASTAGIR SAB ... Respondent/s

¶41

JOINT MEMO

¶42

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, C/C Labour Court, Mysuru, dated 24.03.2016 in I.I.D. No.22/2013 and dated 26.03.2014 in I.I.D. No.22/2013 vide Annexures ‘H’ and ‘G’ respectively. The Writ Petition has been referred to this Lok Adalat by the Hon'ble High Court U/S.20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act.1987. The parties to the petition have settled their claim before the Lok Adalat on the following terms:

¶43

Both the Petitioner – Corporation and respondent – workman have agreed that respondent – Workman to be reinstated as a fresh trainee and that the respondent – workman will not be entitled for any kind of benefits for the period of service rendered from 28.04.2008 to 07.05.2013.

¶44

The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this 05.09.2018 at Bengaluru Bench.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT/S

¶47

Sd/Sd/-

¶48

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/S

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri. Dastagir Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri. Dastagir Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rajappa Vs Mariswamy

Ramakrishnappa Vs Venkatesh S B

Omkaramma Vs Abdul Razak

Smt Manjula L Vs the Managing Director

Mrs. Kumada Valli Vs Mr.Suresh Rolli

B v Santhosh Kumar Vs the Managing Director