Disposed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Shivappa

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023WP/36770/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Lok Adalat disposed of Writ Petition No. 36770/2016 filed by BMTC challenging a Labour Court award. The court recorded a joint settlement wherein the petitioner agreed to reinstate the respondent without back wages or consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service from the date of dismissal, without back wages or consequential benefits.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Shivappa — Service and Employment | 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 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Ms. M.R.RASHMI, MEMBER

¶9

WP.No.36770/2016(L KSRTC) (Lok Adalat No.1418/2023)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC), WEST DIVISION, KENGERI SATELLITE BUS STAND,

¶12

KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. B.L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. SHIVAPPA, S/O THIPPANA KADAMAGERI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O JAYAWADAGI VILLAGE, BYAKOD POST, BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586 203.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE I ADDL., LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE PERTAINING TO REF. NO. 9/2015 WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DATED 26.02.2016 VIDE ANNEX-C AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED.

¶22

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent have filed a joint memo duly signed in the presence of BMTC Law officer and the workman and they have agreed to the terms of Joint Memo. The said joint memo reads as under:

¶24

"The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award dtd.26-2-2016, passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref-09/2015. The Writ

¶25

¶26

Petition has been referred to the Lok-Adalat by the Hon'ble High Court U/S 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. Both parties to the petition have settled their claim before the Lok-Adalat on the following terms as below.

¶27

The petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity service without Consequential benefit from date of dismissal till award and without back wages, The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok-Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this at Bengaluru Bench".

¶28

In view of the joint memo filed, parties have settled the dispute in terms of joint memo. The joint memo would be filed in part and parcel of this order.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/MEMBER

FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 36770/2016

¶35

(LOK ADALATH NO. 1418/2023)

¶36

BETWEEN : THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC

¶37

... Petitioner

¶38

AND :

¶39

Sri. Shivappa ... Respondent

¶40

JOINT MEMO

¶41

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award dtd.26-2-2016, passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref-09/2015. The Writ Petition has referred to the Lok-Adalat by the Hon’ble High Court U/S 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. Both parties to the petition have settled their claim before the Lok-Adalat on the following terms as below.

¶42

The petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity service without Consequential benefit from the date of dismissal till award and without back wages, The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok-Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this at Bengaluru Bench.

¶43

Sd/SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT

¶44

Sd/Sd/-

¶45

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Shivappa

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

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Puneeth v N

Sri Bharath B M Vs Mr J S Gafar

Ramachandra K Vs Ramutha

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri v Umesh

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Siddegowda Since Deceased by His Lrs

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S N Dasegowda