Karnataka High Court
Sri B.S. Ganesh vs Transystems Logistics International ... on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
WP No. 44970 of 2013
HC-KAR
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,
Digitally NO.20, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
signed by C
HONNUR SAB RAMANAGARA TALUK AND
Location: DISTRICT-562 109.
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (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:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
WP No. 44970 of 2013
HC-KAR
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
Hereinafter referred to as the 'KSRTC'
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
HC-KAR
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:
AIR 2016 SC 345
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
HC-KAR
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:28341
HC-KAR
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
