Karnataka High Court

Sri Vijaya Ganapathi vs M/S Intuit Technology Services ... on 20 November, 2023

Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit

                                        -1-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB
                                                 WA No. 501 of 2022
                                                       &
                                                WA NO. 1151 of 2022


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

              DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                  PRESENT
            THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       AND
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                     WRIT APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2022 (L-TER)
                                        &
                    WRIT APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2022 (L-TER)

            IN W.A.NO.501 OF 2022
            BETWEEN:

                SRI VIJAYA GANAPATHI
                S/O SRI R GANAPATHI
                NO.46, ALKAPOOR TOWNSHIP
                SECTOR II/B, PUPPALAGUDA
                HYDERABAD-500089
                TELANGANA
                                                         ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR
            MS.DEEPA.J, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by   AND:
SHARADA
VANI B
Location:       M/S INTUIT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LTD
HIGH            CAMPUS 4A, PRITECH PARK
COURT OF        ECO SPACE, 7TH FLOOR
KARNATAKA       BELLANDUR VILLAGE
                VARTHUR HOBLI
                BENGALURU -560 103
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                                         ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB
                                        WA No. 501 of 2022
                                              &
                                       WA NO. 1151 of 2022


IN W.A.NO.1151 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

    SRI VIJAYA GANAPATHI
    S/O SRI R GANAPATHI
    NO.46, ALKAPOOR TOWNSHIP
    SECTOR II/B, PUPPALAGUDA
    HYDERABAD-500089
    TELANGANA
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR
MS.DEEPA.J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

    M/S INTUIT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LTD
    CAMPUS 4A, PRITECH PARK
    ECO SPACE, 7TH FLOOR
    BELLANDUR VILLAGE
    VARTHUR HOBLI
    BENGALURU -560 103
    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)


      THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12.05.2022 IN W.P.NO.874/2020 TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANT IS
AGGRIEVED AND TO ALLOW W.P.NO.874/2020 AND ACCORDINGLY
DISMISS W.P.NO.10902/2020 THEREBY TO GRANT THE RELIEF OF
REINSTATEMENT AND FULL BACK WAGES WITH CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS RECKONED AT THE
'STRONG' PERFORMANCE RATING PROVED BY THE APPELLANT ON
RECORD IN THE LABOUR PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE APPELLANT
IS JUSTLY AND RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED.

      THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB
                                        WA No. 501 of 2022
                                              &
                                       WA NO. 1151 of 2022



                          JUDGMENT

These two intra-court appeals filed by the employee

seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's

common order dated 12.05.2022 whereby Management's

W.P.No.10902/2020 having been substantially favoured,

appellant-employee's W.P.No.874/2020 has been

dismissed with costs.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

workman vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge

fell in a gross error in not noticing that there was no

settlement between the parties and in any event the one

alleged by the Management was brought about by duress

and therefore, relief could not have been denied to his

client. According to the counsel, this very approach of the

learned Single Judge constitutes an error apparent on the

face of the record warranting interference of this court for

setting the same right.

NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB WA No. 501 of 2022 & WA NO. 1151 of 2022

3. Per contra, appearing for the Management

resists the appeals contending that there is enough

evidentiary material on record that demonstrates the

settlement and that the contention as to the same having

been brought about by duress, is absolutely untrue, if not

false. He also points out that pursuant to the settlement,

the employee has received a sum of Rs.4,24,335/- and

parted ways. That being the position, he prays for the

dismissal of appeals.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the appeal papers, we decline

indulgence in these appeals broadly being in agreement

with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The first

contention of the appellant-employee that there was no

any settlement, is bit difficult to countenance. He had filed

a civil suit in O.S.No.5885/2012 wherein he had filed a

Memo in the civil court on 08.10.2012 admitting the

receipt of Rs.4,24,335/- by Demand Draft; admittedly this

amount was toward earned pay, notice pay and leave

NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB WA No. 501 of 2022 & WA NO. 1151 of 2022

encashment. The Management's application filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 came to be favoured and

the plaint was rejected. That being the position, the first

contention as to absence of the settlement, has to fall to

the ground.

5. The second contention that the employee was

coerced to accept the settlement agreement and

therefore, the same is liable to be voided again is bit

difficult to sustain, admittedly, he having received a sum

of Rs.4,24,335/- that too by way of Bank Draft. Added,

the employee in terms of Memo dated 03.10.2012

admittedly, had returned the laptop to the Management.

The appellant is not an illiterate labourer or an unskilled

workman. He is a qualified software engineer. His

contention that he had received the amount under protest

does not improve his case, especially because of the

attending circumstances.

NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB WA No. 501 of 2022 & WA NO. 1151 of 2022

6. The learned Single Judge at para 29 of the

order has observed as under:

"29. A sanctity is attached to the proceedings of the Court. The advocate is an officer of the Court. There is a statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the judicial acts are regularly performed. Though the Labour Court did not frame the issue with regard to the validity of the termination under settlement recorded on 29.09.2012 by the Court, the burden of proving the fact that the settlement before the Court was forced one was on the workman."

7. Learned Single Judge, at paras 30 & 31 of the

impugned order has rightly observed as under:

"30. Except his self serving testimony the workman did not adduce any evidence to show that the settlement before the Court was forced one. Further his conduct of raising such contention after receiving the amount militates against him that too when he himself is a qualified engineer and was assisted by an advocate. He did not choose to examine his advocate to substantiate such contention. Therefore it can be held without hesitation that the workman was terminated on 16.08.2012 under a settlement.

NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB WA No. 501 of 2022 & WA NO. 1151 of 2022

31. When there is termination by mutual settlement, which is evident from the proceedings in O.S.No.5885/2012, it is not open to the workman to question the same. He cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Therefore W.P.No.874/2020 shall fail."

8. The views of the learned Single Judge as to the

regularity & truthfulness of judicial proceedings, namely

those which the appellant had himself taken up in his

aforesaid suit, secure succor from the inner voice of Article

261(1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

"261. Public acts, records and judicial proceedings.

(1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State."

This provision has been carefully crafted by the Makers of

the Constitution, keeping in view the American Model.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution employing a

similar clause, has the following text:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the

NC: 2023:KHC:41526-DB WA No. 501 of 2022 & WA NO. 1151 of 2022

Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Similarly, Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia also

employs a full faith and credit clause in the following way:

"Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State."

From the above discussion it can be presumed that the

'full faith and credit clause' was introduced to provide

legitimacy and conclusiveness inter alia to the records of

judicial proceedings. To discredit the invocation of this

important rule, the appellant has not shown to us any

special circumstances.

In the above circumstances, these appeals being

devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly

dismissed, costs having been made easy.

We make it clear that what has been observed

hereinabove being confined to the adjudication of the

appeals in question, and the observations in the impugned