Partly allowed

Smt. G. Meenakshi v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2021WP/46646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court settled two writ petitions arising from an Industrial Tribunal award. It approved a joint settlement where the corporation agrees to give a compassionate appointment to the respondent (son of the deceased workman). In return, the respondents waive monetary benefits. The Tribunal award was modified accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned Industrial Tribunal award by incorporating the terms of a joint settlement and directed the corporation to appoint a respondent to compassionate grounds within three months.

Smt. G. Meenakshi Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17823/2019 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 46646/2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.17823/2019:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION NORTH DIVISION YESHAWANTHPUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

G. MEENAKSHI W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

VINUTHA S D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶15

S MANOJ S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶16

¶17

ALL ARE R/A NO.108 KUNTIGRAMA, ‘B’ BLOCK T R NAGAR POST HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI. SOMASUNDAR RAO R, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD 24.07.2017 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN COMPLAINT NO.87/2014 [ANNEXURE-F] AND ETC.

¶21

IN W.P.NO.46646/2019:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. G. MEENAKSHI W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶24

MISS. VINUTHA D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶25

MR. S MANOJ S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.108 KUNTI GRAMA, ‘B’ BLOCK, T R NAGAR POST, HEBBALA BANGALORE-560032

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SHRI. SOMASUNDAR RAO R, ADVOCATE)

¶29

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC) NORTH DIVISION, YESHWANTHAPUR BANGALORE-560022

¶32

….RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 24.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.87/2014 WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF BACK WAGES TO THE PETITIONERS WHICH ARE PAYABLE TO THE DECEASED SHANKARAPPA FROM THE DATE OF HIS DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF HIS DEATH I.E., 16.01.2014 AND ETC.

¶35

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Both these petitions arise out of the impugned

¶38

judgment and award dated 24.07.2017 passed in complaint No.87/2014 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. While, W.P.No.17823/2019 is filed by the BMTC-Management, W.P.No.46646/2019 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased workmanShankarappa.

¶39

¶40

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶41

Counsel for the respondents have filed a joint memo.

¶42

The said joint memo reads as follows:

¶43

“The parties to the proceedings have agreed to settle the cases, hence the award dated 24.7.2017 passed in Complaint No 87/2014 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (ANNEXURE F) may kindly be notified as under: 1. The corporation to provide an appointment on compassionate grounds to one of the legal representatives of the deceased workman i.e. S Manoj S/o late Shankarappa (respondent No 3), the said appointment is to be made as per the terms and conditions specified in the regulations governing compassionate appointment, as is existing in the corporation.

¶44

2. The respondents are not entitled for any monetary/financial benefits/terminal benefits consequent on setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.06.2009. However it is made clear that the amount if any received by the respondents shall not be recovered. The corporation is not liable to pay any financial benefits to the respondents except providing compassionate appointment.

¶45

¶46

The petitioner and the respondents have agreed for the aforestated modification.”

¶47

The said joint memo is placed on record.

¶48

As can be seen from the aforesaid joint memo,

¶49

the BMTC-Management has agreed to provide an appointment on compassionate grounds to Sri. S. Manoj S/o Late Shankarappa (respondent No.3) subject to the condition that the said appointment is to be made as per the terms and conditions specified in the Regulations governing compassionate appointment as is existing in the Corporation.

¶50

The parties have also agreed that in view of the aforesaid appointment to be made in favour of Sri.S.Manoj S/o Late. Shankarappa on compassionate grounds, the legal representatives of the deceased workman would not be entitled to any monetary/financial benefits/terminal benefits consequent on setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.06.2009. It is also

¶51

¶52

agreed that the amount if any received by the respondents shall not be recovered and that the BMTC would not be liable to pay any financial benefits to the respondents except providing compassionate appointment.

¶53

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru is hereby modified in terms of the joint memo.

¶54

The BMTC is hereby directed to take necessary steps to grant compassionate appointment in favour of Sri.S.Manoj S/o Late. Shankarappa as per the Joint Memo within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶55

Subject to the aforesaid directions, both writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

Smt. G. Meenakshi v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. Meenakshi v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G S Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

D S Umamaheshwar Vs Executive Engineer

Bbmp Powrakarmikara Sangha Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs Smt. Sushilamma

The Executive Engineer Ele Vs Sri Chikkanna

K C Shamanna Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)