1 HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI & SRI RAJASHEKAR K., MEMBER WRIT PETITION No.22685/2025 (L-KSRTC) (Lok Adalat No.7285/2025) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SANJEEVA MURTHY, S/O LATE KADRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O DAPPARTHHI AT POST, GUDIBANDE TALUK, 2 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209. …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE ON ISSUE NO.1 IN ID NO.38/2013, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED. CONCILIATION ORDER In this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing Award dated 21.10.2014 passed by II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in ID no.38/2013 vide Annexure-F. 2. After negotiations, parties have arrived at settlement. Accordingly, both parties have filed Joint Memo duly signed before Lok Adalath. Joint Memo reads as follows: 3 "JOINT MEMO The WP filed against the award in ID No.38/2013 dated 13.11.2024 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under: 1. The Corporation has agreed to take the petitioner into service as a fresh trainee for a period of 2 year from the date of reinstatement as per interim order. 2. The Respondent to be placed on probation for a period if 2 year on successful completion of 2 year of training. 3. The period of service rendered by the employee/trainee prior to the order of removal would not be considered for any purpose. 4. The settlement of arrived without prejudice to the contentions takes by the corporation that the trainee is not a workman under the provisions of I D Act and the said issue is kept open to the decided in appropriate cases. 5. The parties to the proceeding have agreed for the above terms.” 4 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of modifying Award dated 21.10.2014 passed by II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in ID no.38/2013 vide Annexure-F in terms of Joint Memo. SD/- JUDGE SD/- MEMBER AV