Allowed¶45

Sri Thimmaiah N M v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025RP/455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC review petition RP No. 455 of 2024 (decided 28.11.2025, C.M. Poonacha, J.) allowing review and recalling the order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC). Keywords: Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Section 33(2)(b); Section 33(1)(b); Section 12(1); conciliation notice dated 03.10.2012; dispute referred for conciliation pending; Industrial Tribunal Bengaluru; Serial Application No.1716/2012; order dated 17.05.2016; KSRTC Divisional Controller Bengaluru Central Division; dismissed workman Thammaiah N M; writ petition re-listed 16.12.2025; Article 215 Constitution; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) reviewed/recalled; WP No. 14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) re-listed before the roster bench on 16.12.2025. ¶45

Sri Thimmaiah N M Vs the Divisional Controller — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition allowed; order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) reviewed/recalled; WP No. 14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) re-listed before the roster bench on 16.12.2025.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the review petitioner's contention that the respondent-employer ought to have taken recourse to Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (a dispute referred for conciliation having been pending) rather than Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) should be reviewed/recalled.

¶27

Court's answer

Since the review petitioner produced a conciliation notice dated 03.10.2012 issued under Section 12(1) of the Act, it is clear that a dispute which had been referred for conciliation under the provisions of the Act was pending.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fact that the review petitioner has produced a copy of the notice dated 03.10.2012, it is just and expedient that the relief sought for in the review petition be granted so as to enable the review petitioner to contest the case of the employer/writ petitioner in the writ proceedings.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (RP No. 455 of 2024) under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, decided on 28.11.2025 by C.M. Poonacha, J., allowed and the order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) reviewed/recalled. Background: the Divisional Controller, KSRTC (employer) had filed WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) against the order dated 17.05.2016 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Serial Application No.1716/2012 dismissing the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the writ petition was allowed by order dated 24.11.2022. The review petitioner (dismissed workman Thammaiah N M) contended the employer ought to have taken recourse to Section 33(1)(b) of the Act, not Section 33(2)(b), and produced a conciliation notice dated 03.10.2012 issued under Section 12(1) of the Act. Finding that a dispute referred for conciliation was pending, the Court held it just and expedient to grant the relief sought so as to enable the review petitioner to contest the employer's case in the writ proceedings, and re-listed WP No. 14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) before the roster bench on 16.12.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 455 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI THAMMAIAH N M S/O. N. T. MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. AMMANI JAYAMMA STREET, NEAR WATER TANK, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU, REPT. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶17

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC. PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED. 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 14326/2021 (LKSRTC), AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel Smt Siri Rajashekar, for petitioner and learned counsel for Sri Srinivas for Sri B L Sanjeva, for respondent.

¶26

The present review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 24.11.2022 passed in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC).

¶27

The primary contention put forth by the review petitioner is that the respondent-employer ought to have taken recourse to Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947¹ before dismissing the petitioner from service and could not have taken recourse to proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.

¶28

1 hereinafter referred as 'Act'

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is forthcoming that the respondent-employer

¶33

filed WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Serial Application No.1716/2012 by the Industrial Tribunal in Bengaluru² , wherein the application made by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶34

In the present case, the review petitioner has produced a memo along with documents including a copy of a conciliation notice ¸ÀASÉå:PÁC¨ÉA-2/LrJ/J¸ïDgï-12/201213/158/159, dated 03.10.2012, which is issued under Section 12(1) of the Act. Hence, it is clear that a dispute which has been referred for conciliation under the provisions of the Act was pending. This Court, by its order dated 24.11.2022, considered the scope under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act and allowed the writ petition.

¶35