- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19146 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: T V VENKATESH S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.33, 16TH MAIN, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF RECAREO INDIA PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, NO.28-C, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, HAROHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560109. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE AWARD DATED 7.9.2013 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT IN I.D.NO.6/2011 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 AT ANNX-A, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who was in employment with the respondent was attached as 'the Personal Driver' of its General Manager, is aggrieved by the Order dated 07.09.2013 in Ref.No.24/2011 clubbed with ID No.06/2011 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The Labour Court, by the impugned Order dated 07.09.2013, has rejected the Reference in No.24/2011 and the claim in the Industrial Dispute No.06/2011. If the Government has referred the dispute relating to the petitioner's dismissal from service, he has also impugned the dismissal Order under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ‘the ID Act’]. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 2. The Labour Court at the first instance has considered whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent against the petitioner is proper, and the Labour Court has answered this Issue in the respondent’s favour. Thereafter, the Labour Court has permitted the petitioner and the respondent to lead evidence to support their respective cases, and the petitioner has examined himself as WW-1 and got marked Exhibits.W1 and W2. 3. The respondent has examined three witnesses, and these witnesses are -Sri K G S Alva [MW1 – the Inquiry Officer], Smt. Chandrakala [MW2 - Assistant House Keeping Personnel and working at the residence of the General Manager] and Sri. K G Poovanna [MW 3 - Manager [HR and Administration]. The last witness has spoken about hiring a detective Agency to verify whether the petitioner was indeed gainfully employed. The respondent, apart from this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 evidence, has relied upon the inquiry proceedings and the evidence let in the Inquiry. 4. The Labour Court, answering the other Issues such as whether the Dismissal Order dated 08.12.2010 is justified because the respondent has established that the petitioner is guilty of the charges leveled against him and whether such order is perverse, has opined in favour of the respondent concluding that it has proved the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and that the petitioner has failed to prove victimization. 5. The undisputed facts are that the respondent employed the petitioner to work as a Driver in the year 2006, and the respondent called upon him to drive the Company Car assigned to the General Manager for his and his family’s use. On 26.05.2010, the Company Car met with an accident resulting in damage to the vehicle and loss in a sum of Rs.46,328/- [the cost of repair of the car]. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 petitioner is served with the Suspension Order dated 11.06.2010, and he is next served with Charge Sheet -cum -Notice of Enquiry dated 18.06.2010. 6. The respondent's case, based on the Report filed by the General Manager's wife1, is that she was traveling in the car to pick up their children from the school; that the petitioner was dozing while driving the car; that despite the petitioner being alerted, he could not help but dose off, and as such, he hit a tree stump damaging the vehicle in the front and causing minor injuries to the lady. The respondent alleges deliberate negligence in the petitioner being the reason for the accident in which the vehicle is damaged resulting in loss of Rs.46,328/-. 7. The petitioner's defense is that he was not driving the car at the time of the accident. The petitioner’s defense is built on the assertion that he 1 the Incident Report filed by the General Manager and his wife are marked as Exhibits.M17 and M18 in the Inquiry. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 dropped the children at school and returned to the General Manager's residence around 9.45 am on 26.05.2010, he left the car key and the mobile in the car when he left with leave to attend to the documentation relating to his properties; that when he returned in the evening, he had to wait till 7 pm when he got information about the accident from the General Manager's wife. The petitioner also contends that on the next day he was called upon to report to duty at the factory where he was assigned to drive another vehicle to pick up the scrap. 8. The petitioner further asserts that in the afternoon on the next day, he was called and informed that he had to resign; that he was ultimately advised to go home without precipitating; that he was also asked to stay back at home when he reported to duty the next day; that he was served with the suspension order when he was hospitalized - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 to undergo surgery for the implants that he carried because of an earlier surgery. 9. In the enquiry, the respondent, while rebutting the petitioner's defense that he had left the place of work at 9.45 am and returned to the place of work only in the evening, has relied upon two vital circumstances. The circumstances that are relied upon by the respondent are: [a] The petitioner had driven the General Manager's wife to a hypermarket around 11 am and filed a parking slip in his handwriting. [b] After the accident, he has called, from the mobile given by the Company; the HR Executive, the Towing Agency and the Service Supervisor of M/s. Trident Automobiles [P] Limited. In fact, in the petitioner’s cross examination in the Inquiry, it is suggested to him that he has filed the Parking Slips, which he has denied asserting that he - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 had left his mobile along with the keys in the car when he took permission from the General Manager's wife. Though there are suggestions as aforesaid, the respondent has not produced the Parking Slip/s. 10. The petitioner has produced two copies of the Memorandums of Partition to substantiate his defense that he had left the workplace with permission to attend to the documentation relating to the joint family properties. These Memorandums of Partition are marked in the Enquiry as Exhibits-D2 and D3. If the copy produced on 14.08.2010 is marked as Exhibit-D2, the copy produced on 09.09.2010 is marked as Exhibit-D3. Admittedly, Exhibit-D2 did not have the signature of the official of the Gram Panchayat while Exhibit-D3 has such a signature. 11. The Inquiry Officer has referred to the respondent's case that the petitioner had driven the General Manager's wife to a hypermarket and called - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 the HR Personnel/Towing agency and the Service Supervisor after the accident from the official mobile to disbelieve the petitioner’s case. The Labour Court, without examining whether there is any discrepancy in the contents of the two Memorandums of Partition, has disbelieved the petitioner's case that he left the workplace in the morning leaving behind the mobile and keys in the car and that his mobile could have been used to call different persons. The Labour Court has opined that the General Manager's wife is a French-speaking lady and she could not have spoken to all these persons. 12. Sri L Muralidhar Peshwa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must consider the petitioner's grievance with the Enquiry Officer's Report/Disciplinary Authority's Order as also the Labour Court's Order in the light of the fact that the dismissal order is by the General Manager who has filed the instant Report along with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 his wife. The learned counsel emphasizes that the decision to be fair and to pass muster in law had to be by an Officer other than the General Manager. 13. Sri L Muralidhar Peshwa next argues that though the petitioner does not dispute the accident, he has seriously contested that he was at the steering wheel at the time of the accident. The learned counsel also points out that the photograph of the vehicle exhibited does not show a tree stump and that the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer could not have attached importance to the discrepancy in the Memorandums of Partition because it is only introduced to show that the petitioner attended to his personal work on that day. The learned counsel argues that the respondent must establish its case that the petitioner was driving, and that the accident is because he dozed off. 14. Sri Somashekar, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the petitioner cannot - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 draw any advantage from the fact that the complaint is by the General Manager's wife and the decision is by the General Manager and bias would only be if the General Manager had given evidence. The learned counsel canvasses that the General Manager is the highest authority in the organization and therefore no exception can be taken in upholding the dismissal. On merits, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has taken up a specific defense that he had left with the permission of the General Manager's wife to attend to his work, and to succeed he must establish this fact, but he has failed in the case. 15. These rival submissions are considered to decide on whether the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the decision to dismiss him from service given the limited expanse of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the fact-finding authorities opining against him. If the petitioner has indeed made out a case for - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 such interference, the relief that he would be entitled to. As regards this Court's jurisdiction, this Court must refer to the Apex Court’s decision in 'State of Haryana and Others v. Devi Dutt and Others'2. The Apex Court’s observation read as under: "The High Court ordinarily should not have interfered with the said finding of fact. We, although, do not mean to suggest that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with by the superior courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same should be done upon application of the well-known legal principles such as: (1) when it is perverse; (2) when wrong legal principles have been applied; (3) when wrong questions were posed; (4) when relevant facts have not been taken into consideration; or (5) the findings have been arrived at on the basis of the irrelevant facts or on extraneous consideration. This Court must opine that the decision on the petitioner's grievance against his dismissal vide the Order dated 08.12.2010 must turn on whether the 2 (2006) 13 SCC 32 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 respondent has established that the petitioner was at the steering wheel when the accident took place, and whether the decisions on the above question by the Authorities and the Labour Court are based on relevant factors and in accordance with the settled principles. 16. The respondent's case is that the petitioner dozed off while driving resulting in the accident. The respondent, to justify its decision to dismiss the petitioner from service, must establish this by acceptable evidence. The respondent relies upon the evidence of the General Manager's wife, who, according to the respondent, was in the vehicle at the time of accident. This Court, on reading the evidence of the General Manager's wife which is recorded in English in the presence of a Translator who knows French, must observe that she mentions nothing about the petitioner’s activities between 9.45 am and the time of the accident. However, in the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 petitioner's cross examination, it is suggested to him that he drove her to a hypermarket at around 11 am and filed a parking slip in his handwriting. 17. The respondent has not placed on record any material to substantiate these circumstances. The respondent, especially when it contends that the petitioner has filed Parking Slips at the Hypermarket in his own writing when he drove the General Manger’s wife to the Hypermarket, should have placed the Parking Slips on record. The respondent had to show that the petitioner was on duty between 9.45 am and the time of the accident with the petitioner contending that, he had left around 9:45 am with permission to attend to his personal work and the General Manager’s wife not mentioning that he drove her to a Hypermarket or any other work by him between 9.45 am and the time of the accident. 18. This gains significance in the light of the undisputed facts that [i] the petitioner was entrusted - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 with the car assigned to the General Manager for his/ his family’s use, [ii] on 26.05.2010, the petitioner had dropped the General Manager's children to the school and returned to the General Manager's residence, and [iii] the General Manager, despite he and his wife filing the complaint, has issued the order dismissing the petitioner from service. The Labour Court has not considered these factors. 19. The circumstance held against the petitioner is the Call Record Details. Admittedly, these details only show certain calls are made to the HR Executive, the Towing agency and the Service Supervisor with an automobile company from the mobile issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The Labour Court has inferred that only the petitioner could have made those calls because the General Manager's wife, could not have spoken English. This Court must consider this evidence, in the light of the fact that the respondent has not - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 conclusively established that the petitioner was driving the General Manager’s wife at the time of the accident and that, as pointed out by Sri Muralidhar L Peshwa, the damaged vehicle was moved when photographed. 20. The Labour Court has disbelieved the petitioner’s defence that he left the General Manager’s residence in the morning with the permission of his wife after returning from dropping the children at school because of a certain discrepancy in the Memorandums of Partition filed by him. The petitioner’s case is that he asked for leave and left because he had to participate in the drawing up of the Memorandums of Partition to settle the dispute with his family members on the partition of the family immovable properties. In the first Memorandum of Partition [Ex. D–2] the officer of the Gram Panchayat has not signed and in the next document [Ex.D.3] which is submitted later, this officer has signed. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 21. Crucially, there is no difference in the contents of these Deeds. If this Deed is duly drawn and signed by the concerned on the day it is drawn, but it is later signed by an Officer with the Gram Panchayat for authentication, that cannot lead to an inference that this Deed is fabricated. This Court must opine that, unless compelling circumstances are shown, the inference against the petitioner would in fact be extraneous, and that there are no such circumstances. 22. The Labour Court has considered none of these circumstances, and the Labour Court, though has framed questions on whether the Dismissal Order dated 08.12.2010 is just, has not examined the petitioner's grievance based on victimization. This Court, because of these circumstances and the fact that the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service is by the General Manager despite the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 initiation of the proceeding based on his own report and his wife’s testimony, must interfere, and the first question is answered in favour of the petitioner. 23. The respondent, to establish that the petitioner is gainfully employed after the dismissal from service has engaged a Detective Agency which has filed its comprehensive Report. It is seen from this Report3 that the petitioner was under the surveillance for three days in July 2012; that the petitioner drove a car bearing No.KA 05 MC 1761 which was attached to Bengaluru International Airport Authority for the use of Senior Employees with private Enterprises; that he has also spoken to the agents about the amount payable to him for such attachment. The respondent's witness [MW-3] has spoken about this in the cross examination in the Reference with the Labour Court, and this witness’s testimony does not in any manner undermine the 3 This Report with its Annexure is marked as Exhibits.M51 and M52 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 efficacy of the Report as the only material suggestion is that the vehicle is not owned by him. 24. Indeed, it is settled that if the dismissal order is unjustified reinstatement must follow, but this need not be in every set of circumstance. In the present case, the dismissal Order is of the year 2010 and the petitioner was employed as a Driver. The respondent has established that he was gainfully employed as Driver on an admittedly higher remuneration. If the circumstances are so considered, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a global sum would be just compensation. Hence, the following: ORDER [i] The petition is allowed. [ii] The impugned Order dated 07.09.2013 in I.D. No.6/2011 [Annexure-A] of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, is quashed. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:10216 WP No. 19146 of 2014 [iii] The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Only] to the petitioner within a period of two [2] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If there is any delay, the respondent shall, for the delayed period, pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-