- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7354 WP No. 46267 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.46267 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC, WEST DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B. SHIVARAJU, S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O KODIYALA, ARKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE AWARD DTD 3.4.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF NO.22/2016 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-C. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7354 WP No. 46267 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent. Respondent is present before the Court. 2. Both counsel jointly submit that the dispute is amicably settled and terms and conditions of the settlement are reduced in joint memo. The joint memo is submitted before the Court. It is signed by the petitioner as well as the respondent and also learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. 3. The terms of the settlement are extracted as under: “JOINT MEMO The WP is filed against the award in Ref No.22/2016 dated 03/04/2018 on the file of the Labour Court, Bangalore has been settled between the parties on the following terms - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7354 WP No. 46267 of 2018 and the award may kindly be modified as under: 1. The corporation agreed to reinstate the employee afresh trainee from the date of reporting/working as per the High Court interim order. 2. The services of the trainees prior to removal till the date of reinstatement as per Interim Order will not be considered for any purpose. 3. The 2 years of training period shall be considered from the date of reporting as per the Honble High Court Interim Order. 4. The difference of wages will not be paid from the date of probationary till the settlement. 5. The trainee employees will be placed on probationary/confirmation as per the procedure and pay will be fixed notionally without any arrears during this period i.e., till settlement. 6. Without prejudice to the contentions taken by both the parties in respect of issues raised by both the parties, this settlement is arrived by keeping open the issue whether the trainee is workman or not as per the ID act is to be decided in appropriate case. The parties to the proceedings have agreed for the above terms.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7354 WP No. 46267 of 2018 4. Having gone through the terms, this Court finds that the terms are lawful and there are no reasons to reject the terms of settlement. 5. Accordingly, the joint memo is accepted. The impugned award is modified in terms of the settlement. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61