Disposed

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023WP/938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging gratuity orders, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of the matter based on a joint memo submitted by the petitioner and third respondent. The settlement provided for a lump-sum payment towards the gratuity difference, resolving the dispute amicably.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Corporation directed to pay Rs. 1,51,790/- to the third respondent in full and final settlement of gratuity difference within four weeks.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:37454 WP No. 938 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.938 OF 2022 (L-PG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE, BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE DIVISION - 2, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, SUB-DIVISION - 2, KARMKEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶15

V.MUNIRAJU

¶16

S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, ADULT, R/O NO.1/3, KUVEMPU ROAD, SSVS SCHOOL,

¶17

KADIRENAHALLI, NEW COLONY,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:37454 WP No. 938 of 2022

¶20

BSK 2^ND STAGE, BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.V.SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.3 jointly submits that the petitioner Corporation and the third respondent V.Muniraju have amicably resolved the dispute and accordingly, they have filed a Joint memo. Counsel therefore, submits that the joint memo may be placed on record and the Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:37454 WP No. 938 of 2022

¶30

Submission is noted. Joint memo is placed on record and

¶31

it reads as under:

¶32

" JOINT MEMO

¶33

The parties to the proceedings have agreed to settle the case, consequently the orders at Annexure-A dated:29.02.2020 and Annexure-C dated:13.08.2021 under challenge in this petition may kindly be modified as under:

¶34

The petitioner Corporation to pay the third respondent a lumpsum of Rs.1,51,790/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only) towards difference in gratuity in full and final settlement.

¶35

The petitioner and the third respondent have agreed for the aforesaid terms."

¶36

The Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

¶37

The Corporation is hereby directed to comply the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

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

P. Murthy Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.G.Harish

Mr.Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Ravindranath Mane S/O Late J Athmaram Mane Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt Devika Bai Vs Smt Meera Satyananda Nikam