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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100/2023
Filing Date
21-12-2023
Registration No
100/2023
Registration Date
21-12-2023
Court
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, MYSURU
Judge
618-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMESHA, DRIVER, BADGE NO.2297, SATHAGALLI UNIT.
Respondent(s)
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLER, KSRTC, MYSURU CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION, MYSURU.
Hearing History
Judge: 618-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Mysore
Disposed
RESERVED FOR AWARD
PRL. STAGE
PRL. STAGE
PRL. STAGE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | RESERVED FOR AWARD | |
| 07-03-2026 | PRL. STAGE | |
| 28-02-2026 | PRL. STAGE | |
| 16-02-2026 | PRL. STAGE |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts