Disposed

Ramanaika v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023WP/1624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No.1624/2022, the Petitioner sought to quash a Labour Court award and seek reinstatement with back wages. Before the Bench, which functioned as the Lok Adalath, the parties reached a settlement. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by modifying the impugned award according to the signed Joint Memo.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of by modifying the Labour Court award per terms of settlement signed by parties.

Ramanaika Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

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

¶7

MS. M. R. RASHMI, MEMBER

¶8

W.P.No.1624/2022 (LK) (Lok Adalath No. 1493/2023)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

RAMANAIKA

¶11

S/O LIMBYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A ALUR HATTI MALEKATTE POST 577512 DAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST.

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

¶16

KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE 577001

¶17

…Respondent

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WP FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DAVANAGERE IN I.D. NO.17/2015 DATED 22.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTTE THE PETITIONER INTO

¶20

¶21

SERVICE WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT.

¶22

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

¶23

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated

¶25

22.10.2021 in I.D. No.17/2015 passed by the Principal District And Sessions

¶26

Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Davanagere, vide Annexure ‘A’.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

“The WP filed against the award in I.D. No.17/2015 Dated 22.10.2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Davanagere has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶30

1. The Respondent – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service without any benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the Award dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Presiding

¶36

Officer, Labour Court, Davanagere in I.D. No. 17/2015 vide Annexure ‘A’.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/MEMBER

Rbv*

FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 1624/2022 (LOK ADALATH NO. 1493/2023)

¶42

BETWEEN : RAMANAIKA ... Petitioner

¶43

AND :

¶44

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC ... Respondent

¶45

JOINT MEMO

¶46

The WP filed against the award in ID.No.17/2015 Dated 22.10.2021 on the file of the Principal District Session Judge, Davanagere has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶47

The Respondent – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service without any benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement.

¶48

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

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT

¶53

Sd/Sd/-

¶54

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT

Ramanaika v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanaika v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

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

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S Ramesh