- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 455 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI THAMMAIAH N M S/O. N. T. MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. AMMANI JAYAMMA STREET, NEAR WATER TANK, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU, REPT. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC. PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED. 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 14326/2021 (L- KSRTC), AND ETC. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Smt Siri Rajashekar, for petitioner and learned counsel for Sri Srinivas for Sri B L Sanjeva, for respondent. 2. The present review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 24.11.2022 passed in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC). 3. The primary contention put forth by the review petitioner is that the respondent-employer ought to have taken recourse to Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471 before dismissing the petitioner from service and could not have taken recourse to proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. 1 hereinafter referred as 'Act' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024 4. It is forthcoming that the respondent-employer filed WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Serial Application No.1716/2012 by the Industrial Tribunal in Bengaluru2, wherein the application made by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. In the present case, the review petitioner has produced a memo along with documents including a copy of a conciliation notice ¸ÀASÉå:PÁC¨ÉA-2/LrJ/J¸ïDgï-12/2012- 13/158/159, dated 03.10.2012, which is issued under Section 12(1) of the Act. Hence, it is clear that a dispute which has been referred for conciliation under the provisions of the Act was pending. This Court, by its order dated 24.11.2022, considered the scope under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act and allowed the writ petition. 6. In view of the fact that the review petitioner has produced a copy of the notice dated 03.10.2012, it is 2 herein after referred as 'Tribunal' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49654 RP No. 455 of 2024 just and expedient that the relief sought for in the present review petition be granted so as to enable the review petitioner to contest the case of the employer/writ petitioner in the writ proceedings. 7. Hence the following order: ORDER i. The present review petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 24.11.2022 in WP No.14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) is reviewed/recalled. iii. Re-list WP No. 14326/2021 (L-KSRTC) before the roster bench on 16.12.2025. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3