IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 56202 OF 2014 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

MAHINDRA SATYAM LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 45/47, PHASE-II, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT CHIEF CORPORATE COUNSEL, MR SUDHAKAR REDDY KOMPALLY (MAJOR).

…PETITIONER (BY SRI J PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR AJAY BHAGAT (MAJOR), Digitally GA ROYAL CLASSIC APARTMENT, signed by PRAMILA G V 14^TH CROSS, 22^ND MAIN, Location: PADMANABHANAGAR, HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560070.

OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SMT GEETHA M S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GAUTHAMADITYA S, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE AWARD DTD 01.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.28/2012 AT ANNX-J AND HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/employer is before this Court assailing the correctness of the award dated 01.09.2014 in ID No.28/2012 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru.

2. In terms of the impugned award, the claim of the respondent/employee is allowed and the order dated 01.06.2012 terminating the respondent/employee from the services is held to be illegal.

3. In terms of the impugned award, the claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is rejected. However, the employer is directed to reinstate the employee by setting aside the order of termination dated 01.06.2012. The Labour Court also directed 50% back wages to be paid to the employee. 4. The employee/respondent was initially appointed on

18.10.2005 and on 11.01.2006, he was terminated as his certificate relating to graduation in Engineering was found to be fake. It is submitted that on 14.10.2010, the respondent was interviewed and he was selected and he joined services on 29.11.2010 and thereafter on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that his graduation certificate is fake and he was terminated on 01.06.2012.

5. This order of termination was called in question by the employee before the Labour Court at Bengaluru. The matter was contested before the Labour Court. The parties led evidence in support of their contention. The Labour Court though found that the certificate is fake, set aside the order of termination and passed an order for reinstatement with 50%

back wages.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is completely erroneous as the Labour Court has passed an order to reinstate the person who has not only submitted fake certificate to gain employment but also suppressed the material fact that he was terminated by the employer on earlier occasion where he had secured employment by producing the very same fake certificate.

7. It is further contended that the finding of the Trial Court that the termination of the employee amounts to double jeopardy is wholly untenable, and that the impugned award is to be set aside and the claim petition has to be rejected.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the employee no doubt was terminated on earlier occasion for producing fake certificate, however, later when he applied for employment under the petitioner, he made a statement, albeit on receipt of the selection intimation, that on earlier occasion the former employer has terminated him for giving a wrong information. It is further contended that the employee does possess requisite qualification and since the employee had disclosed the fact that he was earlier terminated for providing wrong information and no further enquiry was made by the employer, employer is estopped from raising a contention that the employee does not possess the