Allowed¶42

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2026WP/20229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC / NEKRTC writ petition (L-KSRTC), WP No. 20229 of 2021, decided 24 June 2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:31419); permission to prosecute management for non-implementation of Labour Court award; voluntary retirement and acceptance of monetary benefits; acquiescence; bar on insisting on prosecution; quashing of Deputy Labour Commissioner's order dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure-E); Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; single judge (Jyoti M, J.).

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure-E) quashed; writ petition allowed; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶42

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31419 WP No. 20229 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20229 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

¶10

NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GULBARGA DIVISION GULBARGA BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, YADGIR DIVISION YADGIR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:31419 WP No. 20229 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER.

¶21

SIDDARAMAPPA ADVANI, S/O. BHEEMASHAW ADVANI, ADULT R/O. NO.1/A, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, BEHIND BANK OF INDIA, SHARADADEVI NAGARA, MYSORE -570022.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

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

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Smt.Renuka.H.R., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Naveen Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, counsel for respondent No.2, appeared

¶28

in person.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:31419 WP No. 20229 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

2. The short facts are these:

¶33

The second respondent, an employee of the Corporation, filed an application before respondent No.1 seeking permission to prosecute the management, alleging the non-implementation of the Labor Court's award. Respondent No.1, by order dated 29.06.2018, directed respondent No.2 to initiate criminal proceedings against petitioners 1 to 3. After obtaining permission, respondent No.2 has initiated criminal proceedings. Under these circumstances, the Corporation is before this court.

¶34

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶35

Sri. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on instructions, submits that respondent No.2 has voluntarily retired from service and has accepted all the monetary benefits arising therefrom. Hence, it is prayed that an appropriate order be passed.

¶36

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with

¶37

care.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:31419 WP No. 20229 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Suffice it to note that respondent No.1 permitted respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners on 29.06.2018. It is pivotal to observe that, after obtaining such permission, respondent No.2 opted for voluntary retirement and accepted all monetary benefits arising therefrom. Once respondent No.2 has voluntarily accepted the said benefits, he cannot insist upon prosecuting the petitioners. The subsequent event of opting for voluntary retirement makes it evident that respondent No.2 has acquiesced in the benefits received, and therefore, he cannot raise any grievance regarding the non-implementation of the award passed by the Labor Court.

¶42

For the reasons stated above, the order dated:29.06.2018 vide Annexure-E stands quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶43

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶44

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶45

SS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar

B M Gurappa Vs B G Santosh Kumar

Mr. Madiraju Babu Vs Sir.M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

B S Indira Bai Vs the Managing Director

Sri G D Arun Vs State Bank of India

Dakshayanamma Vs the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority