The Divisional Controller v. Sri Ramesh Biradar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 21750 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC, EAST ZONE/ DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B L SANJEEV., ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI RAMESH BIRADAR S/O MANOHAR

by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:14434( WP(No.(21750(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS,,, R/AT,MULASAVALAGI,VILLAGE,AND,POST,, SINDAGI,TALUK,, VIJAYAPURA,DISTRICT,-,586,127, , …RESPONDENT, , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO,, A), CALL, FOR, RECORDS, OF, THE, PROCEEDINGS, OF, THE, II, ADDITIONAL,LABOUR,COURT,,BANGALORE,PERTAINING,TO,ID, NO.243/2021,,WHICH,HAS,CULMINATED,IN,ITS,AWARD,DATED, 09/01/2025,PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-E,,B),ISSUE,A,WRIT,IN, THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT,,ORDER,OR,DIRECTION,,QUASHING,THE,AWARD,DATED, 09/01/2025,PASSED,BY,THE,II,ADDITIONAL,LABOUR,COURT,, BANGALORE,IN,ID,NO.243/2021,,PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-E,, AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, ***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed for assailing the award dated

09.01.2025 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the claim under Section 2-A read with Section 10(4-A) (Karnataka Amendment), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 is partly allowed.

¶2The dismissal order dated 21.04.2021 passed by the employer is set aside. The Labour Court also directed for continuity of service, and further directed to deduct one annual increment without cumulative effect.

¶3Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-employer is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. The respondent is present in person.

¶5The respondent is said to be the employee of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the person who is present before the Court is employee of the petitioner based on the identity card issued by the petitioner.

¶6Joint memo is filed reporting settlement, and the terms of the joint memo dated 12.09.2025 read as under: "Both the parties have agreed to settle the dispute in following terms and conditions:

¶1The Respondent agrees to be reinstated with continuity of service without consequential benefits, without back wages and without interim relief from the date of dismissal till the date of reporting to the work on the basis of memo filed and recorded in final order dt: 10.02.2023 in W.P.No.11160/2022. Respondent agrees to forego interim relief (if any) granted in this case.

¶2Respondent agrees for postponement of 1 annual increment without cumulative effect for period of 2 years which will be operative from the date of reporting to the work on the basis of memo filed and recorded in final order dt: 10.02.2023 in W.P.No.11160/2022.

¶3The Respondent agrees an undertaking that he will not participate or instigate others loyal employees to the strike in future and he will not absent to the duty during the strike period in his service.

It is respectfully submitted that both the parties have agreed above terms and conditions to settle the dispute and the Hon'ble Court may please be dispose the case in terms of the above Joint Memo."

¶7It is agreed that the respondent will undergo the penalty of postponement of one annual increment without cumulative effect for two years from the date of reporting to the work on the basis of memo filed and recorded in final order dated

10.02.2023 in W.P.No.11160/2022.

¶8Accordingly, party-in-person/respondent submits that he has voluntarily entered into settlement. This Court does not find any reason to reject the proposal for settlement.

¶9Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of joint memo.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SSB