- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.38760 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.51630 OF 2014 IN WP No.38760/2014 BETWEEN: BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD, BENGALURU. BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: R.H. HANUMANTHA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.204, 5TH CROSS, KAVIKA LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, DEEPANJALINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 24.01.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF. NO.19/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 IN WP No.51630/2014 BETWEEN: SRI R.H. HANUMANTHA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.205, 5TH CROSS, KAVIKA LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 26. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 24.01.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF. NO.19/2012 (ANNEXURE-A) INSOFAR AS NOT PASSING ANY ORDERS REGARDING CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND DENIAL OF BACK WAGES FROM 4TH / 5TH JUNE, 2009 TO 21ST MARCH, 2012; AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 ORAL ORDER Writ Petition No.38760 of 2014 is filed by the employer- Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation assailing the award dated 24th January, 2014 passed by III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Labour Court') in Reference No.19 of 2012, wherein the order of dismissal of the respondent-employee from service is set-aside and the Labour Court directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into his original Post. 2. Writ Petition No.51630 of 2014 is filed by the employee-Sri. R. Hanumantha challenging the award dated 24th January, 2014 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.19 of 2012 in respect of rejected claim regarding continuity of service and consequential benefits and denial of back wages. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these petitions shall be referred to in terms of their ranking in Writ Petition No.38760 of 2014. 4. The petitioner-corporation would contend that the respondent-employee was appointed under the petitioner- corporation as Driver during the year-1997. The prescribed qualification for the post of Driver was passing IV-Standard. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 During the year-2007, the petitioner-corporation addressed a letter to the School Authorities along with the copy of Transfer Certificate produced by the respondent-employee with a request to confirm the genuineness of the said Transfer Certificate. The School Authorities have issued the endorsement stating that the copy of Transfer Certificate submitted by the respondent- employee is not pertaining to the respondent-employee. 5. Based on the said endorsement, the petitioner- corporation initiated the disciplinary enquiry and Articles of charges were framed. The parties have participated in the proceedings and the Enquiry Officer gave the finding that holding of charges against the respondent-employee are proved. The second Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent-employee responded to said notice. The disciplinary authority held that the charges are proved and imposed the penalty of dismissal of the respondent- employee from service. 6. Being aggrieved by the said penalty of dismissal from service, the respondent-employee raised dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court raised the preliminary issue relating to the fairness of enquiry held against the respondent- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 employee. Later, the parties led evidence. The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the charges are not proved and accordingly, set-aside the order of dismissal of the respondent-employee from service. 7. As mentioned above, two writ petitions are filed before this Court. One is filed by the petitioner-corporation, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent-employee from service. The second petition is filed by the respondent-employee, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, denying the continuity of service and consequential benefits and denial of back wages from the date of dismissal of the employee dated 04th/05th June, 2009 to 21st March, 2012. 8. Heard Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation and Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the respondent-employee. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation would submit that, admittedly, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Driver under the petitioner-corporation was completion of IV-Standard. Respondent-employee made a claim - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 that, he had completed IV-Standard. He produced Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 (Exhibit-M3). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation further submits that column No.10 in the said certificate would indicate that the respondent-employee has been promoted to V- Standard; column No.20 reveals that the respondent- employee's last attendance at school is 18th March, 1975 and column Nos.21 and 22 show that the application for issuance of Transfer Certificate was received on 26th September, 1982 and School Authorities have issued the same on 27th September, 1982. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation would further contend that the petitioner-corporation has produced the Transfer Certificate of Hanumantharayappa and same is marked as Exhibit M16(A). The said Certificate bearing No.54/80-81, was issued on 28th May, 1980. In both certificates bearing No.62/82-83 (Exhibit-M3) and 54/80-81 (Exhibit-M16(A); at column No.2, the Admission Number is shown as 28/71-72; in column No.4, the name of the pupil is shown as Hanumantharayappa; and in column No.8, the name of the father is shown as Rangappa. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation would also contend that the contents in the Transfer Certificate produced at Exhibit-M3 does not tally with the Transfer Certificate produced at Exhibit-M16(A) particularly in column No.10 as to whether the pupil qualified for promotion to a higher standard. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee would contend that the basis for making entries in the Transfer Certificate bearing No.54/80-81 (Exhibit-M16(A)) is not forthcoming and the entries in Exhibit-M16(A) should be supported by the materials like Marks card and other records indicating the successful and unsuccessful completion of IV- Standard by the student. Learned counsel for the respondent- employee contended that, the Head Mistress has stated before the Labour Court that the records are not available with the School, and the Labour Court is justified in not placing reliance on Exhibit-M16(A) and has given the benefit of doubt. It is also urged that in the fact that Exhibit-M3 is certified copy issued by the competent authority and it carries presumption. Thus, he would contend that, though the contention raised by the petitioner-corporation may appear to be one plausible view, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 view taken by the Labour Court is also logical and plausible and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the award cannot be set-aside 14. This Court has secured the original Transfer Certificate Register from the School Authorities through learned High Court Government Pleader and same is perused. 15. On perusal of the said Register, it is noticed that the Transfer Certificate bearing No.54/80-81 dated 28th May, 1980 is pertaining to one Hanumantharayappa S/o Rangappa, whose Date of Birth is 26th June, 1964 and the entries mentioned in Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 is pertaining to one Vanajamma B. D/o Basappa, whose Date of Birth is 20th July, 1971. Thus, it is evident that the certificate submitted by the respondent-employee which is marked as Exhibit-M3 is not a true certified copy of the Transfer certificate bearing No.62/82- 83. The Transfer certificate at Exhibit M16(A) bearing No.54/80-81 is in the name of Hanumantharayappa and the same is belonging to the respondent-employee, which reveals that the said Hanumantharayappa was not qualified for V- Standard indicating that he has not cleared IV-Standard. Thus, he was not qualified to be selected as Driver. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation had also contended that the Labour Court committed an error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent-employee from service mainly relying upon the evidence of Head Mistress, who is not in position to say on what basis, the Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 (Exhibit M3) is issued in favour of the respondent-employee. However at the same time, the Head Mistress had also stated that, there are no records maintained by the School Authorities to establish that the respondent-employee had cleared IV-Standard and promoted to V-Standard. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation contended that the basis for making entries in the Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 (Exhibit M3) is not forthcoming. When it is stated by the Head Mistress before the Labour Court that the records are not available, the Labour Court is not justified in extending the benefit of doubt. 17. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner- Corporation had established that the Transfer Certificate produced by the respondent-employee at Exhibit-M3 is fake. Correspondingly, whether the respondent-employee established that he was qualified to V-Standard by clearing IV-Standard and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 he was eligible for appointment as a Driver under the petitioner- corporation. 18. There is no dispute that, to secure the post of Driver under the petitioner-corporation, the minimum qualification is prescribed as completion of IV-Standard. The respondent- employee to substantiate his claim that he has cleared IV- Standard, has produced Transfer Certificate marked at Exhibit- M3, which is certified by the then Head Master of the School at the relevant point of time. This aspect is also not in dispute. But the question is whether the contents of the certified copy of Transfer Certificate produced by the employee which is marked as Exhibit-M3 is correct as per the original Transfer Certificate Register maintained by the School Authorities. As already stated, this Court, noticed the original Transfer Certificate Register produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader, wherein, the Transfer Certificate bearing No.54/80-81 is pertaining to Hanumantharayappa S/o Rangappa and Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 pertaining to Vanajamma D/o Basappa. These two certificates are pertaining to two different persons. As per the original Transfer Certificate Register, the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 is not belonging to Hanumantharayappa. 19. Though the learned counsel for the respondent- employee contended that the contents in the Transfer certificate produced at Exhibit-M16(A) bearing No.54/80-81 particularly, in column No.12 would indicate that, Hanumantharayappa S/o Rangappa was not qualified for promotion to V-Standard and same is not supported by any material on record, this Court is of the view that the Transfer Certificate Register maintained by the School Authorities in normal course of its functioning, is a public record and it carries a presumption, as to its correctness, the contents are incorrect and it is for the respondent-employee to establish as to how the contents are incorrect. The School Authorities have stated that the original records like Marks Card and Attendance Register for relevant year are missing. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the contents of Exhibit-M16(A) are not correct. Moreover, the contents of the Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 (Exhibit-M3) produced by the respondent-employee do not tally with the contents of the Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83 in the original Transfer Certificate Register as per Transfer Certificate bearing - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 No.54/80-81 belonging to the respondent-employee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-corporation has established that Exhibit-M3 is not a true certified copy pertaining to original Transfer Certificate bearing No.62/82-83. It is also noticed that the respondent-employee has not produced any other document to show that, he has qualified to V-Standard. The very document on which, the respondent- employee is relying on is Exhibit-M3, is found to be incorrect and does not tally with original Transfer Certificate Register maintained by the School Authorities. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that merely, because the original records like Marks cards and Attendance Register maintained by School are not found, the Labour Court could not have given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-employee. The order of dismissal is passed on evidence led by the Authorities stating that Exhibit M3 is not a true certified copy of the contents of Register maintained by the School Authorities and the said endorsement is well established by the petitioner-corporation. 21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court has completely disregarded material - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4163 WP No.38760 of 2014 C/W WP NO.51630 OF 2014 evidence i.e., original Transfer Certificate Register maintained by the School Authorities. Hence, I pass the following: O R D E R 1) Writ Petition No.38760 of 2014 is allowed; 2) Award dated 24th January, 2014 passed by III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.19 of 2012 is set-aside; consequently, the penalty of dismissal of the respondent-employee from service is restored; 3) Writ Petition No.51630 of 2014 is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16