Disposed

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. C. M. Mallikarjunaswamy S/O Madaiah

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/39287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two connected writ petitions challenging an award in an industrial dispute. Counsel submitted that the parties had settled their claims amicably before the Lok Adalath. The court accepted the joint memo of settlement and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of as the dispute had been resolved amicably between the parties via a settlement before the Lok Adalath.

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 7593 of 2020 C/W WP No. 39287 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7593 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 39287 OF 2018

¶8

IN W.P.NO.7593/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

C M MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O MADAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKONAHALLI, ANDANAHALLI MATHA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. ,BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVSION, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560027

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. S.B SRIKANTH.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD.6.12.2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER III ADDL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.37/2016 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO REDUCTION OF FOUR ANNUAL INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT VIDE ANENXURE-A TO THE W.P. 2) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE

¶19

¶20

WP No. 7593 of 2020 C/W WP No. 39287 of 2018

¶21

CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND 30 PERCENT BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶22

IN W.P. NO.39287/2018

¶23

BETWEEN

¶24

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K H ROAD, BANGALORE – 560027

¶25

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER: KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA , BANGALORE - 560027

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. S B SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND

¶29

C. M. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS TOKEN NO 4979, DRIVER R/AT CHICKONAHALLI, ANDANAHALLI MATHA POST, KUNIGAL POST, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101

¶30

…RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI. L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.37/2016; B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUAHSING THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 06.12.2017, PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.37/2016, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H. C) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 7593 of 2020 C/W WP No. 39287 of 2018

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Both the counsel submit that the dispute between

¶38

the parties has been resolved amicably and a joint

¶39

memo has been filed, which reads as under:

¶40

“ The WP filed against the award in ID.No.37/2016 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore has been referred to the Lok Adalath by the Hon’ble High Court U/S.20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. The parties to the appeal have settled their claim before the Lok Adalath on the following terms:

¶41

The petitioner – KSRTC has agreed to reinstate the respondent workman into service with continuity of service, without consequential benefits, without back wages by withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶42

Respondent – workman has agreed for the said settlement”

¶43

In view of the joint memo and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶44

Sh List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. C. M. Mallikarjunaswamy S/O Madaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. C. M. Mallikarjunaswamy S/O Madaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Stanzen Links (India) Ltd., Vs Sri D K Narayana

Stanzen Links (India) Ltd. Vs Sri Vijaykumar H

Stanzen Links (India) Ltd., Vs Sri. B.L. Chandrakumar

C M Mallikarjuna Swamy S/O Madaiah, Vs the Divisional Controller

Hanamant Vs Sunil

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar Vs Smt. Pampavati