The Divisional Controller v. Sri. G.B. Narayana Swamy
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. After negotiations, the parties have arrived at settlement. Accordingly, both the parties have filed a Joint Memo duly signed before the Lok Adalath. The said Joint Memo reads as follows : “The WP filed against the award in I.D. No.16/2020 Dated 17.8.2022 on the…
- Para 33. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award/Order dated 17.08.2022 in Dispute No.16/2020 vide Annexure ‘A’ passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore vide Annexure ‘A’. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 FILED BEFORE…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA & SRI. P.D. SUBRAMANYA, MEMBER W.P.No.10548/2023 (LK) (Lok Adalath No. 157/2024) BETWEEN: The Divisional Controller, B.M.T.C., East Division, Central Office, Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560 027, Now represented by The Chief Law Officer, B.M.T.C. Central Offices, K.H. Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: Sri. G.B. Narayana Swamy S/o Basavarajaiah N., Aged about 54 years, R/at Gonipura Village, K. Gollahalli Post, 2 Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 IN DISPUTE NO. 16/2020 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A’. THE PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED: CONCILIATION ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award/Order dated 17.08.2022 in Dispute No.16/2020 vide Annexure ‘A’ passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore vide Annexure ‘A’.
#2. After negotiations, the parties have arrived at settlement. Accordingly, both the parties have filed a Joint Memo duly signed before the Lok Adalath. The said Joint Memo reads as follows : “The WP filed against the award in I.D. No.16/2020 Dated 17.8.2022 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under: 3 The petitioner – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, without consequential benefits and without backwages and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect”.
#3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award/Order dated 17.08.2022 in Dispute No.16/2020 vide Annexure ‘A’ passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore vide Annexure ‘A’. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 10548/2023 (LOK ADALATH NO. 157/2024) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC ... Petitioner AND: SRI. G.B. NARAYANA SWAMY ... Respondent JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the award in ID No.16/2020 Dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under: The petitioner – Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, without consequential benefits and without backwages and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this 19/01/2024 at Bengaluru Bench. SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT Sd/- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT Sd/- Sd/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.