Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri v Umesh

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023WP/43825/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the High Court Lok Adalat, the High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a labour court award. Witnesses were not examined by either side but relied on a joint memo. The dispute was settled, directing respondent's reinstatement without continuity of service or backwages. The petition was dismissed based on this settlement. No advocate appeared for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondent ordered to be reinstated without continuity of service and backwages; no enhancements in increments; treated as not continuous service under Sec 2A of Gratuity Act for absence period.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri v Umesh — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.43825/2015 (L KSRTC) (Lok Adalat No.1393/2023)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 103.

¶12

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER: KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶13

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. V. UMESH, S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3^RD CROSS,

¶16

¶17

SUBASH NAGARA, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR - 572 103.

¶18

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.58/2014, QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED:9.4.2015 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.A.NO.58/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

"The WP filed against the award in I.D No.58/2014 on the file of the Principle Labour Court, Bangalore dated 9.4.2015 has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶24

The respondent is directed to be reinstated into service without continuity of service, without backwages from the date of dismissal till

¶25

¶26

the date of actual reinstatement, further the respondent is denied four increments with cumulative effect.

¶27

Further the period of absence reflected 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 and pending default cases if any which are filed will be reopened.

¶28

The parties have agreed for the aforestated terms of settlement".

¶29

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.

¶30

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

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/MEMBER

CT:PH

FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 43825/2015

¶37

(LOK ADALATH NO. 1393/2023)

¶38

BETWEEN : THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC

¶39

... Petitioner

¶40

AND :

¶41

SRI. V UMESH ... Respondent JOINT MEMO

¶42

The WP filed against the award in I.D.No.58/2014 on the file of the Principal Labour Court,, Bengaluru dated 9.4.2015 has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

¶43

“The respondent is directed to be reinstated into service without continuity of service and without Consequential benefits and backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement, further the respondent is denied four increments with cumulative effect.”

¶44

“Further the period of absence reflected 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 and pending default cases if any which are filed will be reopened.”

¶45

The parties have agreed for the aforestated terms of settlement.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT

¶48

Sd/Sd/ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT

The Divisional Controller v. Sri v Umesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri v Umesh

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

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

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Shivappa

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S N Dasegowda