S R Rudraprasad v. The Managing Director Ksrtc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 4438 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: S.R. RUDRAPRASAD S/O LATE REVANNARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SAMPIGE AT AND POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 225 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027

2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101

¶3THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 562 159

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondents, appeared in person.

¶2This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dated

23.11.2015 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-Q.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to refix the pay scale of the petitioner as per the award passed by the Additional Labor court, Bangalore in I.D.No.130/2001 dated

09.11.2004 as per Annexure-C to this writ petition by extending all the benefits notionally from

06.08.1997 onwards with all consequential benefits or.

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. The arguments were heard, and the papers were perused with care.

¶4Suffice it to note that the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.130/2001. The Labor Court, vide award dated 09.11.2004, allowed the petition, directed the reinstatement of the workman to their original post with continuity of service only, and declined any entitlement to other consequential benefits. It is noted that the Corporation preferred a writ petition in No.11521/2005. This Court, vide order dated 06.03.2009, dismissed the writ petition.

It is pertinent to note that, as regards the decline of the relief of other consequential benefits, the workman did not file any writ petition. Accordingly, the Tribunal's award has attained finality. The Corporation has issued an endorsement fixing his pay scale as per the Labor Court award. Hence, the petitioner cannot have grievance against the endorsement. Since the

Corporation has fixed his pay scale as per the Tribunal's award, I find no grounds to quash the endorsement.

¶5Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34