1 HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE & SRI. M.N.UMASHANKAR, MEMBER W.P.No.22641 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) (Lok Adalath No.5650/2025) BETWEEN SRI.H.S.SURESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SIDDALINGAIAH R/AT JODI HONNAVALLI VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI AND POST ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST - 573 218 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUYOG HERELE.E., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER APPOINTING AUTHORITY KSRTC, CHIKMANGALUR DIVISION CHIKMANGALUR - 577 101 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE ) Digitally signed by DEEPU M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALUR IN IDA NO.12/2016 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A. THE PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED: CONCILIATION ORDER The petition is filed by the petitioner/workman assailing the award dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Chikkamagalur in I.D. No.12/2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent are present. 3. Parties to the proceeding have signed the joint memo reporting settlement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman and respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation would submit that the dispute is settled and the parties have reduced the terms of the settlement in the joint memo. 5. The joint memo reads as under:- 3 "The WP is filed against the award in IDA. No 12/2019 dates 13.04.2023 on the file of the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru has been settled between the parties on the following terms and the award may kindly be modified as under: 1. The Respondent/Corporation agreed to take the Petitioner into service as a fresh trainee for a period of one year. 2. The Petitioner to be placed on probation for a period of two years on successful completion of one 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 is arrived without prejudice to the contentions taken by the corporation that the trainee is not a workman under the provision of ID Act and the said issue is kept open to decided in appropriate cases. 5. The parties to the proceedings have agreed for the above terms". 6. This Court does not find any impediment to accept the terms of the settlement. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The impugned award dated 13.03.2019 passed by the 4 Labour Court, Chikkamagalur in I.D. No.12/2016 is set- aside in terms of the joint memo. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER brn