Gopal S/o. Hanumappa Madar, Age. 39 Yrs., R/o. At and Po. Murdi, Ilkal Tq., Bagalkote Dist. vs The management of NWKRTC, U.K. Division, Rep. by Divisional Controller, Sirsi — 9/2019
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Under Section Section 10-4(A). Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
KID - Karnataka Industrical Dispute
CNR: KAUK010015172019
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
9/2019
Filing Date
16-10-2019
Registration No
9/2019
Registration Date
17-10-2019
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR
Judge
519-PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT U.K, KARWAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gopal S/o. Hanumappa Madar, Age. 39 Yrs., R/o. At and Po. Murdi, Ilkal Tq., Bagalkote Dist.
Adv. M.H. Bhat
Respondent(s)
The management of NWKRTC, U.K. Division, Rep. by Divisional Controller, Sirsi
Hearing History
Judge: 519-PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT U.K, KARWAR
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 09-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 11-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In KID 9/2019 (dated 22-09-2023), the court examined an inquiry officer's departmental inquiry against petitioner Gopal. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with statutory rules and natural justice. The inquiry officer, though now retired, had been authorized by the Divisional Controller to conduct the inquiry and properly re-examined witness testimony. The court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to present his defense, cross-examine witnesses, and file a rejoinder statement. The court upheld the inquiry findings and dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In KID 9/2019 (dated 22-09-2023), the court examined an inquiry officer's departmental inquiry against petitioner Gopal. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with statutory rules and natural justice. The inquiry officer, though now retired, had been authorized by the Divisional Controller to conduct the inquiry and properly re-examined witness testimony. The court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to present his defense, cross-examine witnesses, and file a rejoinder statement. The court upheld the inquiry findings and dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts