SRI. RAMA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.111/3429, BANNIMANTAPA UNIT. vs THE DIVISSIONAL CONTROLER, KSRTC, MYSURU NAGARA VIBHAGA, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU. — 74/2023
Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section 10-1-d. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
Ref. - Reference u/s 10-1-d of ID Act
CNR: KAMS060001152023
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
74/2023
Filing Date
07-11-2023
Registration No
74/2023
Registration Date
07-11-2023
Court
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, MYSURU
Judge
618-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SRI. RAMA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.111/3429, BANNIMANTAPA UNIT.
Respondent(s)
THE DIVISSIONAL CONTROLER, KSRTC, MYSURU NAGARA VIBHAGA, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU.
Hearing History
Judge: 618-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 19-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
This administrative tribunal order (dated 28-10-2025, Ref. 74/2023) documents the examination of a second party witness regarding a government employee disciplinary case. Multiple documentary evidence exhibits (M-1 through M-25) were admitted, including show cause notices, inquiry proceedings, and a punishment order dated 28.12.2018. The witness testified that all statements in the main inquiry report were true, and cross-examination of the first party's counsel was completed with no further examination required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This administrative tribunal order (dated 28-10-2025, Ref. 74/2023) documents the examination of a second party witness regarding a government employee disciplinary case. Multiple documentary evidence exhibits (M-1 through M-25) were admitted, including show cause notices, inquiry proceedings, and a punishment order dated 28.12.2018. The witness testified that all statements in the main inquiry report were true, and cross-examination of the first party's counsel was completed with no further examination required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts