IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.60015 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: DIGICAPTIONS INDIA PVT., LTD., 1ST FLOOR, PEBBLE BEACH, EMBASSY GOLK LINKS, BUSINESS PARK, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, DOMLUR - KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 099, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI A.G. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O GANGANNA, R/AT NO.132, 1ST FLOOR 2ND CROSS, L.G. RAMANNA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560058. 2 . FACILITIES CO-ORDINATORS, NO.22051 BLOCK - 22, PRESTIGE SHANTHINIKETHAN, HOODI VILLAGE, WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE - 560 048, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.KANTHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. R.SAROJINI MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.24/2013 DATED 28.10.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. THIS WRIT PETITION PERTAINS TO PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS AT KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING CAV ORDER In terms of the impugned award dated 28.10.2014 in I.D.No.24/2013, the Labour Court, Bengaluru has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that writ petitioner is the employer of 1strespondent - Sri A.G.Basavaraju. The Labour Court further held that the refusal of employment by the petitioner with effect from 10.01.2012 is unjustified and directed reinstatement of the workman with effect from 10.01.2012 with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and backwages. Hence, the employer is the petitioner before this Court. 2. Respondent No.2 - M/s Facilities Coordinators was 2nd respondent among the Second Party before the Labour Court. Petitioner contends that Sri A.G.Basavaraju - 3 - was the employee of M/s Facilities Coordinators, the Labour Contractor. 3. M/s Facilities Coordinators/2nd respondent has disputed the petitioner’s contention and has supported Sri A.G.Basavaraju's claim that he is the employee under the petitioner. 4. The facts narrated in the claim petition before the Labour Court can be summarised as under: - The workman joined the petitioner’s Establishment on 19.08.2002 as a security officer. Workman’s services were appreciated and the officers-in-charge of the petitioner - Establishment have issued certificates appreciating his efficiency and competency. On 10.01.2012, the workman was denied employment without holding any inquiry and following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the workman raised the industrial dispute. The appropriate Government framed the points for reference and referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The points for reference read as under: - 4 - 1. DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤zÉðñÀPÀgÀÄ, rf PÁå¥Àì£ïì EArAiÀiÁ ¥ÉæöʪÉÃmï °. JA¨Á¹ UÁ¯ïá°APïì ©¹£É¸ï ¥ÁPïð, ¥É¨Éè ©ÃZï, 1£É ªÀĺÀr zÉƪÀÄä®ÆgÀÄ CAZÉ, Jalgï«ÄÃrAiÉÄÃmï jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-71, EªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÁzÀ ²æà J f §¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 46 ªÀµÀð, £ÀA.132, 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr, 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, J¯ï f gÁªÀÄtÚ ¯ÉÃOmï, ®UÉÎgÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-58, EªÀjUÉ ¢:10.01.2012 jAzÀ PÉ®¸À ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ? 2. ºÁV®è¢zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ? 5. The parties appeared before the Labour Court and the petitioner and respondent No.2 of this petition have taken a stand as already noted above wherein the petitioner contends that 1st respondent is the workman under 2nd respondent; respondent No.2 contends that 1st respondent is the workman under the petitioner. 6. Noticing the pleadings, the Labour Court framed two additional issues which read as under: ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the second party No.1 - Management proves that first party was the employee of second party No.2 so he has to seek any relief from second party No.2 only, reference against second party No.1 is not maintainable? - 5 - 2. Whether the second party No.1 proves that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between second party No.1 and first party workman? 7. The parties led evidence in support of their case. 8. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the present writ petitioner is the employer of present 1st respondent. The Labour Court also concluded that denial of work is unjustified and passed the award for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. 9. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court committed a grave error in not noticing the implication of the statutory documents relating to Employees Provident Fund contribution made by 2nd respondent. It is also his contention that Exs.M.1 and M.2, the labour contracts/agreements for outsourcing the manpower and document at Ex.M.8, the quotation reveal that 2nd respondent supplied the manpower for security services and 1st respondent was employed under 2nd respondent - the Labour Contractor and the document at - 6 - Ex.M.20 - the letter dated 25.03.2024 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization revealed that the workman was employed by 2nd respondent. It is also urged that the documents relied on by the Labour Court viz., the letters of appreciation said to have been issued by the employee’s of the petitioner - Establishment do not establish the employer-employee relationship and at best, it would establish that 1st respondent worked for the petitioner, and that could be even because of outsourcing of manpower. It is urged that 1st respondent worked as per the instructions of his employer - 2nd respondent who is the Labour Contractor. 10. It is also urged that the claim petition is filed in collusion with 2nd respondent noticing the fact that 2nd respondent has closed its Establishment. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the workman would contend that workman joined services under the petitioner on 19.08.2002. The alleged outsourcing agreements marked at Exs.M.1 and M.2 are marked subject to objections as to the proof and admissibility. The said documents are not stamped, as such per se inadmissible in evidence and the documents are not proved as the - 7 - documents do not bear the signature on each page and the signature of 2nd respondent is only found at the last page. 12. It is also contended that 1st respondent admittedly was a security officer. At best, the alleged labour contract between 2nd respondent and the petitioner was for house keeping services, and even the document at Ex.M.2, if accepted as correct, the said document would not disclose that M/s Facilities Coordinators as the employer of 1st respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the workman would also submit that the passbook produced by the workman would reflect the monetary contributions made by the petitioner to the account of the workman and also urged that the petitioner and 2nd respondent have colluded with each other to deny the benefits available to the permanent employees of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would contend that there was no agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for supply of security personnel and the agreement if any was only confined to supply of house keeping staff. It is also urged that 2nd - 8 - respondent made payment to 1st respondent on few occasions as per the instructions of the petitioner and for which 2nd respondent has issued invoices to the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly has made payment to 2nd respondent on few occasions and for all practical purposes, the said payment should be treated as the payment made by the petitioner. 15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 16. As already noticed, apart from the points for reference framed by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court has also framed two additional issues. 17. The Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is the employer and Sri A.G.Basavaraju is the workman under the petitioner. The Labour Court has placed reliance on Exs.W.1 and W.2 to arrive at such a conclusion. 18. Ex.W.1 is the letter issued by the Director of the petitioner-Establishment. The said letter reveals that the Director of petitioner-Establishment has known Sri A.G.Basavaraju/1st respondent since October 2005. The said letter is dated 16.05.2011. It further reveals that Sri - 9 - A.G.Basavaraju worked as security officer of the petitioner- Establishment. Ex.W.2 is the letter dated 18.07.2005 issued by the Director-Operations of the petitioner-Establishment. The said letter would reveal that Sri. A.G.Basavaraju - 1st respondent was working as security officer on contract basis from August, 2002 till the date of issue of the said letter. These letters would prima facie reveal that 1st respondent was working for the petitioner if not under the petitioner. Though the said letter hints at contractual employment, tenure is not specified. Whether 1st respondent was working directly under the petitioner or was through a labour contractor cannot be gathered from the aforementioned documents. However, it is certain that 1st respondent was working for the petitioner. 19. Whether 1st respondent was working directly under the petitioner or under the instructions of 2nd respondent has to be considered from the pleadings and the materials placed. 20. It is noticed from the defence statement that the petitioner has disputed the employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent. In - 10 - other words, according to the petitioner, at any point of time, 1st respondent has not worked directly under the petitioner. The defence relating to labour contract raised by the petitioner is based on the alleged labour contract of the year 2004. The letters marked at Exs.W1 and W2 are not disputed in the cross-examination. Thus, the Labour Court has placed reliance on those two letters to hold that 1st respondent was working under the petitioner since 2002. 21. To establish the contention that 1st respondent was supplied by 2nd respondent, the petitioner relies on the agreements at Ex-M1 and Ex-M2 with 2nd respondent - M/s Facilities Coordinators for providing house-keeping and security services. The said documents as already noticed are marked at Exs.M1 and M2, subject to objection. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the documents are not stamped and they are inadmissible in evidence as the objection was raised in the first instance itself before the Labour Court. In addition, what is relevant to note is that Ex.M.1 which is said to be an agreement between the petitioner and 2nd respondent is an agreement to provide personnel for cleaning and maintaining the - 11 - petitioner's premises i.e., an agreement for providing personnel for house-keeping. The agreement does not provide for supply of any security personnel. 22. More importantly, since the authenticity of the document is objected on the premise that the document does not bear the signature of second party on each page, this Court has also carefully scrutinized the said document. It is noticed that document does not refer to any of the conditions relating to security services and it is only confined to the maintenance and cleaning services. Hence, Ex.M1 does not establish the labour contract between the petitioner and 2nd respondent. 23. Ex.M.2 is an agreement and it is also not stamped as such it is inadmissible in evidence though, the said document provides for providing security services. The said document is dated 14.01.2004. This document also does not bear the signature on the first page of the document which is numbered as page No.5 though it appears that it is page No.1. Since it is unstamped and objection was raised before the Labour Court, and document was marked subject to objection, the document is inadmissible in evidence and - 12 - does not establish the labour contract between the petitioner and 2nd respondent. 24. Ex.M.3 is a letter addressed to petitioner where 2nd respondent has claimed itself as service provider for house keeping and other services and particulars relating to Provident Fund Registration Number and Employees State Insurance Number are furnished. This does not disclose that 1st respondent as its employee. Ex.M.4 is the copy of Form 'T' issued under the Karnataka Shops and Establishment Commercial Rules, 1963 wherein the name of the establishment is shown as M/s Facilities Co-ordinators and name of the employer is shown as Digi Captions/petitioner. This Form discloses the name of 1st respondent-workman along with six other persons. The Labour Court has not referred to the document at Ex.M.4 - Form 'T' referred to above. This document as already noticed, in addition to recording respondent No.2 as the Establishment, records name of the petitioner as employer. This document is ambiguous as to who employed 1st respondent. - 13 - 25. The invoices raised by 2nd respondent which are marked at Exs.M.6, 7 and 8 would reveal that 2nd respondent has billed the petitioner for the services rendered by 2nd respondent. 26. There is no discussion by the Labour Court on the said invoices and implication of the said invoices on the question relating to the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and 1st respondent or between 1st respondent and 2nd respondent. 27. Ex.M.18 is the document relating to contribution towards employees insurance for the period covering from October, 2009 to March, 2010. These documents would reveal the name of 1st respondent - Sri A.G.Basavaraju and the name of the Establishment is shown as M/s Facilities Coordinators/respondent No.2. 28. Ex.M.20 - the letter dated 25.03.2014 issued by Employees Provident Fund Organization states that the details relating to Provident Fund amount of Sri A.G.Basavaraju cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. However, the information is provided stating that the name of Sri A.G.Basavaraju is found in the list of members for - 14 - whose benefit contributions is made by 2nd respondent - M/s Facilities Co-ordinators towards employees Provident Fund. Ex.M.21 is the attendance register maintained by 2nd respondent and name of Sri A.G.Basavaraju is found in the attendance register for the month of February, 2010. 29. As can be noticed, even in the absence of an agreement relating to supply of security personnel, there are few documents which tend to suggest that 2nd respondent might have employed 1st respondent – workman. 30. In the light of the aforementioned documents, the question is whether 1st respondent has established the contention that petitioner is his employer and petitioner and respondent No.2 colluded with each other to deny the benefits to the petitioner. 31. As already noticed, the petitioner has not disputed Exs.W1 and W2 which establish that 1st respondent worked for the petitioner even before 2004. It is not pleaded in the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, that 1st respondent – workman was working under the petitioner prior to 2004 in some capacity, may be directly as workman or may be through a Labour Contractor. The Court in the - 15 - absence of any pleading and evidence relating to the status of 1st respondent prior to alleged labour contract 2004, has to take a view that the status of 1st respondent as workman employed by the petitioner, is established at least in the year 2002 and onwards till 2004. Now the question is whether the services of 1st respondent commenced under the alleged labour contract at Ex.M1 and M2. 32. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not taken a stand that post 2004 i.e., post alleged labour contract, the services of 1st respondent were terminated and 1st respondent joined 2nd respondent and started working for the petitioner as per the instructions of 2nd respondent. In other words, from which date 1st respondent joined the services of 2nd respondent, from which date the petitioner terminated the services of 1st respondent and from which date the contract of service if any, between the petitioner and 1st respondent came to an end is not forthcoming. There is no pleading or evidence in this regard. 33. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that the petitioner - Establishment should have the registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and - 16 - Abolition) Act, 1970 as the records would indicate that there were more than 20 employees. Without such registration, the petitioner - Establishment cannot enter into a contract labour agreement. 34. It is further stated that respondent No.2 was providing labourers for house keeping and for this reason, the petitioner used to make payment to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 in turn, used to pay the salary to the house keeping personnel. It is further urged that the petitioner on few occasions requested respondent No.2 to pay the salary to security personnel and at the request of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has paid the salary on few occasions to 1st petitioner and same was later reimbursed in terms of the invoice raised by respondent No.2 and the same does not establish the relationship of employee and employer between respondents No.1 and 2. 35. It is noticed that first respondent - workman has produced the passbooks pertaining to his bank account and those passbooks reveal occasional payment and not monthly payments from the petitioner. It is urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the payment made - 17 - relating to bonus and some special allowances cannot be termed as wages payable to 1st respondent as a regular employee of the petitioner. 36. This Court has also perused the materials produced by the petitioner viz, the invoices produced by the petitioner marked at Exs.M6 to M17. Those invoices are dated 07.03.2012, 27.01.2004, 27.11.2004, 27.01.2005, 27.05.2011, 10.06.2011, 05.07.2011, 13.11.2011 and 07.12.2012. Among these invoices, only the invoice dated 07.03.2012 refers to the name of the workman Sri A.G.Basavaraju and the said invoice is relating to payment made towards gratuity. Rest of the documents do not reveal the name of Sri A.G.Basavaraju. It only says that invoice is raised towards security charges. Why the invoices relating to payment of salary for rest of the period are not produced is not forthcoming. 37. Thus what can be concluded is that Sri A.G. Basavaraju was working even before the alleged contract labour agreement came into existence in the year 2004 which this Court has already noticed as inadmissible in evidence. - 18 - 38. It is true that the implication of the contents of Form ‘T’ at Ex.M4, pay slips at Ex.M5, the documents relating to Provident Fund contributions by 2nd respondent and the copy of the attendance register maintained by 2nd respondent are not considered by the Labour Court. 39. From the contentions raised by the petitioner, one can possibly take a view that 2nd respondent employed 1st respondent. However, this Court also has to consider whether the view taken by the Labour Court is impermissible. The answer seems to be ‘no’ for the reasons already assigned supra as the circumstances strongly suggest that 1st respondent was working with the petitioner since 2002 and there is no evidence by the petitioner to suggest that after 2002, the services were terminated and he started working for 2nd respondent. In the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner and 2nd respondent, either the petitioner or 2nd respondent is the employer of 1st respondent. From one perspective which is already discussed with reference to Exs.W1 and W2 and the lack of pleading and evidence as to the status of 1st respondent from 2002 to 2004 (2004 is the year of alleged labour contract), one can - 19 - certainly take a plausible view that the petitioner had employed 1st respondent as a security officer. And later probably because of some arrangement with 2nd respondent started making payment to 1st respondent through 2nd respondent. This probably was done without explaining the position to 1st respondent. This Court takes this view because there is no pleading and evidence as to the termination of 1st respondent's services as security officer, which is established since 2002. 40. As already noticed, it is not the case of the petitioner that he initially worked as a contract labour under some other labour contractor and later, new labour contract agreement was entered into with 2nd respondent. The petitioner has tried to project a case that workman came to the Establishment for the first time only on the basis of the agreement for supply of contract labourers. This Court has already recorded the reasons that the agreement is inadmissible in evidence as such the labour contract is not established. 41. In case, the labour contract is not established, then the payment if any made through 2nd respondent can - 20 - only be considered as the payment to avoid implication of continuous service to deny the benefits payable to the workman. 42. There is one more important circumstance which points to the possibility discussed above. MW1 in his evidence has admitted that another security officer by name Sri Dinakaran whose name is also found in Form No.5 (Ex.M18) issued under Employees State Insurance Act, along with 1st respondent - Sri A.G.Basavaraju is the regular employee of the petitioner. No explanation is forthcoming as to why Sri Dinakaran whose name appears in Form No.5 pertaining to 2nd respondent along with the name of 1st respondent, is treated as the workman of the petitioner. Thus as rightly contended by 1st respondent, the arrangement to pay the salary of 1st respondent/workman by 2nd respondent (intermittently though, as there is no proof relating to continuous payment) was only to deny the benefits of the workman. 43. It is also noticed that Ex.M4 - Form No.‘T’ issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Rules, 1983 reveals the name of the petitioner - 21 - in the said Form No.‘T’ along with 1st respondent and others. In this document also, name of Sri Dinakaran is shown along with Sri A.G.Basavaraju. Even, in Form No.6A maintained under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, the name of Sri Dinakaran is shown as member under 2nd respondent along with 1st respondent – Sri A.G.Basavaraju. However, Sri Dinakaran is said to be the workman under the petitioner and no acceptable explanation is provided as to how Sri Dinakaran whose name consistently appeared in the aforementioned records would be the workman of the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that though the name of Sri Dinakaran is also found in the attendance register maintained by 2nd respondent, MW1 admits that Sri Dinakaran is their employee. 44. It is indeed true that the award impugned does not expressly discuss all the documents referred to above. However the view taken by the Labour Court appears to be one of the plausible views in view of the discussions made above. The Labour Court has primarily concluded that 1st respondent established the relationship through Exs.W1 and - 22 - W2 and this Court has assigned reasons as to why the reliance on Ex.W1 and W2 is justified. 45. Though this Court could have remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, considering the fact that the dispute is raised in 2013 and 1st respondent was aged 46 when the dispute was raised, and this Court is upholding the award on the basis of other documents also placed on record, instead of remanding the matter, this Court has considered the evidence and discussed the same to uphold the finding of the Labour Court. 46. After holding that 1st respondent is the workman under the petitioner, the Labour Court concluded that denial of work is illegal and directed reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. 47. This Court on perusal of the evidence before the Labour Court is of the view that there are no acceptable materials to believe that 1st respondent was without employment after refusal of work by 1st respondent. Though 1st respondent in the claim statement pleaded that after refusal of work, he was not in any employment, what is to be noticed is, in his evidence, the workman does not say that he - 23 - was not employed. It is also noticed that the workman did not file application under Section 17B claiming wages on the premise that he is not employed. This being the position, this Court is of the view that, 1st respondent is not entitled to full backwages. Since this Court has concluded that denial of work is unjustified, this Court is of the view that 50% of backwages from 10.01.2012 till the date of reinstatement, with all consequential benefits and continuity of service would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice and equity. 48. Hence the following: ORDER a) The Writ petition is allowed in part. b) Impugned award dated 28.10.2014 in reference No.24/2013 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru is modified. c) The petitioner shall pay 50% backwages with continuity of service and all consequential benefits to 1st respondent with effect from 10.01.2012 till the date of reinstatement or till the date of superannuation, if 1st respondent has attained the age of superannuation. - 24 - d) The award for payment of full backwages is reduced/modified to 50% backwages as above. e) The amount shall be paid within 45 days from today, failing which, the amount payable shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award passed by the Labour Court till actual payment. f) No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN