Disposed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S Ramesh

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023WP/11799/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two concurrent writ petitions by KSTC and S. Ramesh challenging a Labour Court award were settled in Lok Adalat. The court passed a conciliation order modifying the original award based on a joint memo agreeing to reinstatement without backwages and specific penalties.

What did the court decide?

Disposition of petitions based on modified award: reinstatement without backwages or consequential benefits; withholding 2 increments; respondent waives wages; specific period treated as non-continuou

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

¶8

MS. M.R. RASHMI, MEMBER

¶9

W.P.No.11799/2018 (L-K)

¶10

(Lok Adalath No. 1499(A)/2023) C/w

¶11

W.P. No.52427/2019 (L-K) (Lok Adalath No. 1499/2023)

¶12

IN W.P. No.11799/2018:

¶13

BETWEEN

¶14

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Chikmagalur Division, Chikmagalur, by its Divisional Controller, Represented by its Chief Law Officer.

¶15

...Petitioner

¶16

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

¶17

AND

¶18

S. Ramesh S/o Shivappa, Aged about 52 years, R/o Ilagundi House, Bagankatte Post, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District – 577 427.

¶19

…Respondent

¶20

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED C/C PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN I.D.A. NO.04/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘E’.

¶23

IN W.P. No.52427/2019:

¶24

BETWEEN

¶25

S. Ramesh S/o Shivappa, Age 54 years, Illagundi House, Baganakatte Post, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District.

¶26

...Petitioner

¶27

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND

¶29

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Chikkamagaluru Division, Chikkamagaluru-577 201.

¶30

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

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN I.D.A. NO.04/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘E’ AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT – CORPORATION TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶32

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT AFTER BEING REFERRED BY THE COURT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED.

¶33

¶34

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶35

The petitioner – Corporation and the respondent – workman both

¶36

have filed the above writ petitions and sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 31.07.2017 in I.D.A. No.4/2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru vide Annexure ‘E’.

¶37

After negotiations, the parties have arrived at settlement. Accordingly,

¶38

both the parties have filed a Joint Memo duly signed before the Lok Adalath. The said Joint Memo reads as follows :

¶39

“The WP filed against the award in IDA.4/2015 dated 31.7.2017 on the file of the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶40

1. The petitioner – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service without consequential benefits without backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement, further as a measure of punishment 2 increments with cumulative effect be withheld.

¶41

2. The respondent undertakes not to claim any wages from the date of award of the Industrial Tribunal till the date on which he reported to duty.

¶42

3. The period of absence stated in the order of dismissal will be treated as not a continuous service under Section 2A of Gratuity Act, he will be not entitled for gratuity for said period.

¶43

4. Pending default cases if any which are filed, will be reopened”.

¶44

¶45

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the Joint

¶46

Memo modifying the Award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru in I.D. A. No.4/2015.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/MEMBER

Rbv*

FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 11799/2018

¶52

(LOK ADALATH NO. 1499(A)/2023) C/w

¶53

WP. NO. 52427/2019

¶54

(LOK ADALATH NO. 1499/2023)

BETWEEN : KSRTC

... Petitioner

AND :

S RAMESH ... Respondent

¶59

JOINT MEMO

¶60

The WP filed against the award in IDA.4/2015 Dated 31.7.2017 on the file of the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶61

The petitioner – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service without consequential benefits without backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement, further as measure of punishment 2 increments with cumulative effect be withheld.

¶62

The respondent undertakes not to claim any wages from the date of award of the Industrial Tribunal till the date on which he reported to duty.

¶63

The period of absence stated in the order of dismissal will be treated as not a continuous service under section 2A of Gratuity Act, he will be not entitled for gratuity for said period.

¶64

Pending default cases if any which are filed, will be reopened.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT

¶67

Sd/Sd/-

¶68

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S Ramesh

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

Aslam @ Aslam Pasha Vs Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd.

Smt Shanthamma Vs M/S Att Logistics Private Ltd.

Smt Durgamma Vs M/S Att Logistics Private Limited

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. M v Sowmya

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs K S Mahadeva

Ramanaika Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc