✦ Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Chikkaballapura v. Sri. Vijaya Kumar Lavagi

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 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 26.10.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 18/2018 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.19807/2023 (LK) (Lok Adalath No. 1095/2024) BETWEEN: The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Chikkaballapura Division, Chikkaballapura, Herein represented by the Chief Law Officer, K.S.R.T.C., Central Offices, K.H. Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore-560 027. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: Sri. Vijaya Kumar Lavagi S/o Chandrashekar, Aged about 44 years, R/o Babalad Village, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District-587 117. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE ) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN I.D. REF NO. 18/2018 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

26.10.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 18/2018 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 without backwages, with continuity of service, without consequential benefits, by withholding 2 (two) annual increments with cumulative effect. Further, the absent period will be treated as not a continuous service under Section 2A of Gratuity Act, he will not be entitled for gratuity for the said period, pending default cases, if any, which are filed will be re-opened. 3 The respondent – workman has agreed for the said settlement”.

#3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Ref No. 18/2018 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. 19807/2023 (LOK ADALATH NO. 1095/2024) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC` ... Petitioner AND: SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR LAVAGI ... Respondent JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the award in Ref. No. 18/2018 Dated 26.10.2021 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 without backwages, with continuity of service, without consequential benefits, by withholding 2 (two) annual increments with cumulative effect. Further, the absent period will be treated as not a continuous service under Section 2A of Gratuity Act, he will not be entitled for gratuity for the said period, 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. 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.

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