RAMESHA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.2297, SATHAGALLI UNIT. vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLER, KSRTC, MYSURU CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION, MYSURU. — 100/2023
Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section 10-1-c-d. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.
Ref. - Reference u/s 10-1-d of ID Act
CNR: KAMS060001452023
Filing Number
100/2023
Filing Date
21-Dec-2023
Registration No
100/2023
Registration Date
21-Dec-2023
Court
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, MYSURU
Judge
618-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAMESHA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.2297, SATHAGALLI UNIT.
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLER, KSRTC, MYSURU CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION, MYSURU.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
09-Mar-2026
Reserved For Award
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
07-Mar-2026
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
28-Feb-2026
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
16-Feb-2026
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
04-Feb-2026
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
31-Jan-2026
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
20-Jan-2026
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
17-Nov-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
03-Nov-2025
Appearance
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
14-Oct-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
18-Sep-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
08-Sep-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
18-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
The court document is largely procedural in nature, recording witness examination and admitting multiple exhibits (M-1 through M-26) related to an inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against Party I, including reports, charge articles, enquiry notices, and punishment orders dated from 2018-2022. The witness testified that all statements in the submitted document were true and bore their signature, and the Party I representative was cross-examined on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Aug-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
02-Aug-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
02-Jun-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
26-Mar-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
28-Feb-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
29-Jan-2025
IssueView PDF
-
29-Jan-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
15-Jan-2025
Issues.
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
02-Dec-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
04-Nov-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
19-Sep-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
17-Aug-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
29-Jun-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
29-May-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
16-Apr-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
28-Feb-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
29-Jan-2024
Prl. Stage
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
-
26-Dec-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 100/2023
The court document is largely procedural in nature, recording witness examination and admitting multiple exhibits (M-1 through M-26) related to an inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against Party I, including reports, charge articles, enquiry notices, and punishment orders dated from 2018-2022. The witness testified that all statements in the submitted document were true and bore their signature, and the Party I representative was cross-examined on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts