Karnataka State Road v. G. Srinivasa Reddy
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 petitioner – KSRTC has agreed to reinstate the respondent – workman into…
- Para 33. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 13/2020 vide Annexure ‘E’. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 FILED BEFORE LOK…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA & SRI. P.D. SUBRAMANYA, MEMBER W.P.No.15087/2023 (LK) (Lok Adalath No. 1094/2024) BETWEEN: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Chikkaballapur Division, Chikkaballapur, by its Divisional Controller, Represented by its Chief Law Officer. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: G. Srinivasa Reddy S/o Govinda Reddy, Aged about 47 years, R/o V.V. Puram, Gauribidanur Town, Chikkaballapur District-561 208. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA REDDY K.V., ADVOCATE ) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 05.04.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN I.D. REF NO. 13/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘E’. 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 dated
05.04.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 13/2020 vide Annexure ‘E’.
#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 petitioner – KSRTC has agreed to reinstate the respondent – workman into service with continuity of service, without backwages, without consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement by withholding 3 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect. Further, the absent period will be treated as not a continuous service under Section 2A of the Gratuity Act. The pending default cases, if any, which are filed will be re-opened. The respondent – workman has agreed for the said settlement”. 3
#3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 13/2020 vide Annexure ‘E’. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 15087/2023 (LOK ADALATH NO. 1094/2024) ... Petitioner BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND: G. SRINIVASAREDDY ... Respondent JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the award in Ref. No. 13/2020 Dated 05.04.2022 on the file of The Principal District And Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under: “The petitioner – KSRTC has agreed to reinstate the respondent – workman into service with continuity of service, without backwages, without consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement by withholding 3 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect. Further, the absent period will be treated as not a continuous service under Section 2A of the Gratuity Act. The pending default cases, if any, which are filed will be re-opened. The respondent – workman has agreed for the said settlement”. The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this 22/02/2024 at Bengaluru Bench. Sd/- Sd/- SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT Sd/- Sd/- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT
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.