- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 44970 OF 2013 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B.S. GANESH S/O BASAVANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A, C/O, MANJULA VENKATESH BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, ANCHEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 074. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: TRANSYSTEMS LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TOYOTA TECHNO PARK, NO.20, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE ORDER/AWARD DATED 09.04.2013 PASSED IN I.D.NO.98/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Court, vide order dated 23.7.2025, had directed the Standing counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation1 to submit details relating to the employment of the petitioner. This order was passed in the light of the submission made by the learned Senior counsel that on 17.03.2009, the petitioner was appointed as a trainee under KSRTC and he was not working under the respondent establishment on the alleged date of denial of employment. 3. The petitioner had raised a dispute on the premise that employment was denied to him by the respondent on 05.04.2009. The records produced by the learned Standing counsel for the KSRTC would reveal that 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'KSRTC' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 the petitioner was appointed as a trainee on 17.03.2009. Later, he is made a permanent employee with effect from 07.03.2012. This being the position, the petitioner cannot raise a grievance that he was denied employment on 05.04.2009 by the respondent. Hence the petition has to be dismissed in limine. 4. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Apex Court in M/S Sciemed Overseas Inc vs Boc India Limited & Ors2 and urged that since it is a case where the petitioner- workman has misled the Court by making a statement that he was denied employment on 05.04.2009, by suppressing the fact that he was employed by the KSRTC, on 17.03.2009 itself, cost has to be imposed on the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would refer to paragraph No.2 of the said judgment which reads as under: 2 AIR 2016 SC 345 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 "A Global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a false affidavit indicates that the number of such cases that are reported has shown an alarming increase in the last fifteen years as compared to the number of such cases prior to that. This is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This 'trend' is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair". 5. In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court has upheld the cost of ₹10,00,000/- imposed by the High Court. Referring to the said judgment, the learned Senior counsel would urge that appropriate cost would be imposed on the petitioner, who filed a false case on the premise that he was denied employment by the respondent on 05.04.2009 onwards despite he was employed by the KSRTC with effect from 12.03.2009. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was employed by KSRTC as a trainee and in his limited understanding, he did not treat it as a regular employment and there was no assurance that he would be absorbed by the KSRTC, as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 such, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute urging that the employment was denied by the respondent- establishment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the facts obtained in the judgment cited by the learned Senior counsel stand on a different footing as compared to the facts obtained in the present case. 8. This Court has considered the submission. 9. It is now borne out from the records that the petitioner was employed on 17.03.2009 as a trainee in the KSRTC. The industrial dispute is raised on the premise that in 05.04.2009, he was denied employment by respondent. The claim statement does not disclose anything about the petitioner joining KSRTC as a trainee on 12.3.2009. This goes to the root of the matter. Having joined the KSRTC on 12.03.2009 the petitioner could not have raise the contention that he was denied employment by the respondent on 05.04.2009. Assuming that there - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28341 WP No. 44970 of 2013 was no assurance of petitioner being absorbed as a permanent employee of KSRTC, the minimum expected was a fair disclosure of petitioner joining KSRTC as a trainee. However, it was never disclosed. In the cross- examination the petitioner has denied the suggestion that he is employed by KSRTC. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a clear case of suppression of material fact and the dispute was prosecuted from 2009 till today without disclosing the fact that he was employed by the KSRTC and he was made regular employee in the year 2012. 11. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46