Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

T. Umesh vs the Divisional Controller

T. Umesh vs The Divisional Controller

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Apr 28, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1659985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/5064/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T. Umesh

Respondent

The Divisional Controller

Excerpt

.....5/2015 vide annexure-b to the wp; direct th respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including backwages from the date of dismissaltill the date of reinstatement under the factsand circumstances of the case. this writ petition coming on for conciliation before national lok adalat, the following conciliation order is passed:conciliation orderin this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the principal district judge, tumakuru in application 10(4)(a) no.5/2015 vide annexure-b. after negotiations, the parties have arrived at settlement. both the parties have filed a joint memo duly signed before the lok adalath. the said joint memo reads as follows: " 1. the respondent 3 corporation agreed to reinstate the petitioner 3 workman intoservice as fresh trainee without any benefits on production of fitness certificate by the petitioner only.2. the parties to the proceedings have agreedfor the above terms." accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the joint memo modifying the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the principal district judge, tumakuru in application 10(4)(a) no.5/2015 vide annexure-b. judge member an/- filed before lok adalat high court legal services committee,bengaluru before the high court lok adalat wp.no.5064/2024 (lok adalat no. 3912/2025) between t umesha &petitioner the divisional controller, ksrtc &respondent joint memo the wp filed against the order in apl.no.05/2015 dated 3.7.2018 on the file of the principal district & session judge, tumkuru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:1. the respondent 3 corporation agreed to reinstate the petitioner 3 workman into service as fresh trainee without any benefits on production of fitness certificate by the petitioner only.2. the parties to the proceedings have agreed for the above.....

Full Judgment

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD & SRI. B.S. PRASAD, MEMBER W.P. No.5064/2024 (Lok Adalat No.3912/2025 ) BETWEEN: T. UMESH S/O. THIPPESWAMY. D, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BHARAMAIAHNA PALYA, NYAYADAGUNTE POST, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 116. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE) THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572 101. RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST., JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN APPLICATION 10(4)(A) NO. 5/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WP; DIRECT TH RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING BACKWAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL

TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE FACTS

AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:

CONCILIATION ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tumakuru in Application 10(4)(A) No.5/2015 vide Annexure-B. After negotiations, the parties have arrived at settlement. Both the parties have filed a Joint Memo duly signed before the Lok Adalath. The said Joint Memo reads as follows: " 1. The Respondent 3 Corporation agreed to reinstate the petitioner 3 workman into

service as fresh trainee without any benefits on production of fitness certificate by the petitioner only.

2. The parties to the proceedings have agreed

for the above terms." Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo modifying the Order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tumakuru in Application 10(4)(A) No.5/2015 vide Annexure-B. JUDGE MEMBER AN/- FILED BEFORE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,BENGALURU BEFORE THE HIGH COURT LOK ADALAT WP.NO.5064/2024 (LOK ADALAT NO. 3912/2025) BETWEEN T UMESHA &Petitioner THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC &Respondent JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the order in Apl.No.05/2015 dated 3.7.2018 on the file of the Principal District & Session Judge, Tumkuru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under:

1. The Respondent 3 Corporation agreed to reinstate the petitioner 3 workman into service as fresh trainee without any benefits on production of fitness certificate by the petitioner only.

2. The parties to the proceedings have agreed for the above terms.

The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this 28.04.2025 at Bengaluru Bench. SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/S

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial