✦ Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metropolitan v. Mallikarjun Shande

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo

Provisions considered

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.60/2019 Dated 7.10.2021 on the…
  • Para 33. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award in Industrial Dispute No. 60/2019 dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure ‘H’) passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE…

Judgment

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA & SRI. P.D. SUBRAMANYA, MEMBER W.P.No.17050/2022 (LK) (Lok Adalath No. 1096/2024) BETWEEN: Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, East Division, Central Office, K.H. Road, Bangalore – 560 027, By its Divisional Controller, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: Mallikarjun Shande S/o Sangamanatha Shande, Aged about 39 years, C/o Muniswamy Reddy, Behind Chowdeshwari Temple, Koppa Village, Hulimangala Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562 106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 07.10.2021 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.60/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘H’. IN 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 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 60/2019 dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure ‘H’) passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.

#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.60/2019 Dated 7.10.2021 on the file of the II Additional 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 from the date of dismissal till date of actual reinstatement and without backwages and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect”. 3

#3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award in Industrial Dispute No. 60/2019 dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure ‘H’) passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Rbv* 4 HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP. NO. 17050/2022 (LOK ADALATH NO. 1096/2024) FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT BETWEEN: BMTC AND: MALLIKARJUN SHANDE ... Petitioner ... Respondent JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the award in ID No.60/2019 Dated 7-10-2021 on the file of the II Additional 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 continuity of service, without consequential benefits, from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement and without back wages and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. into service with 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/- SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT Sd/- Sd/- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments