Mahindra Satyam Ltd. Vs Mr Ajay Bhagat (Major)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 56202 OF 2014 (L-TER)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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).

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI J PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MR AJAY BHAGAT (MAJOR), GA ROYAL CLASSIC APARTMENT, 14^TH CROSS, 22^ND MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

The employee/respondent was initially appointed on 18.10.2005 and on 11.01.2006, he was terminated as his

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

4 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶28

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.

¶29

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 qualification. It is further contented that the Labour Court is justified in holding that the reason assigned for 1^st termination cannot be basis for 2^nd termination. Thus, he would urge that the petition has to be dismissed

¶30

5 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶32

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶33

the bar and perused the records.

¶34

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶35

(a) Whether the petitioner/employer establishes that the respondent/employee did not possess necessary qualification for being employed?

¶36

(b) Whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of termination on the ground that the 2^nd termination for the same cause is impermissible?

¶37

It is not in dispute that one of the qualifications prescribed for the employment is graduation in Engineering. Thus, the question is whether the employee did possess the said qualification. It is an admitted fact that on 18.10.2005, respondent was employed by the same employer which was earlier known as Satyam Computer Services Limited. Then, on 11.01.2006, he was terminated from services on the premise that he does not possess the qualification in Engineering. The certificate which he had produced was said to be fake. The said order of termination is not questioned, employee has accepted the said order.

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶40

Again in the year 2010, respondent was

¶41

interviewed. Admittedly, on the date of interview, he did not disclose the fact that he was terminated on earlier occasion for not possessing the requisite qualification and for producing fake certificate. However, no sooner he received the order relating

¶42

to appointment he sent an e-mail stating that on earlier occasion he was terminated for not disclosing true facts. On going through the said email, it is noticed that the respondent/employee did not reveal that he was terminated from service, for not possessing requisite qualification and also for producing fake certificate. It is indeed true that the person to whom the e-mail is sent did not make further enquiry with the respondent as to what was the wrong information furnished by the respondent, however, that does not absolve the respondent from possessing the necessary qualification required for the employment. To the said communication sent by the employee, one of the employees of the petitioner sent an e-mail dated 22.11.2010 stating that the respondent may go ahead and join the services. Though there is a communication, stating that the respondent may go ahead and join the services, the same does not absolve the employee from

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶45

possessing the necessary qualification. Initially intimation to join the services is subject to verification of records.

¶46

Before the Labour Court, the respondent did not produce the certificate to show that he does possess the qualification in Engineering.

¶47

On verification of records, it is found that the respondent/employee did not possess the graduation in Engineering which was one of the qualifications prescribed. Noticing the fact that the employee produced same certificate which he had produced earlier which resulted in termination of his employment, the petitioner/employer terminated the services of the employee. Before the Labour Court, respondent did not produce the certificate to hold that he did possess necessary qualification of graduation in Engineering.

¶48

As can be seen from the records that the respondent/employee did not possess necessary qualification in Engineering, as such he was ineligible for employment. Though the e-mail was sent stating that he should join the services, it is to be noticed that the employment was not yet confirmed. It was subject to verification of records. And while verifying the

¶49

8 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶51

records, it is noticed that the respondent/employee did not possess necessary qualification. Accordingly, he was terminated from services.

¶52

This Court is of the view that the petitioner has established that the respondent/employee did not possess necessary qualification to be employed under the petitioner.

¶53

As far as the finding of the Labour Court that there cannot be one more order of termination on the premise that the said termination amounts to double jeopardy is concerned, the Labour Court has totally misdirected itself and has totally misread the concept of double jeopardy. The double jeopardy prohibits the person from being punished for the same offence twice. In this case, the cause of action for the 2^nd termination is the 2^nd employment and not the 1^st employment. Thus, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply here. May be it is true that the employee has used the same fake certificate to gain employment for 2^nd time. What constitutes is the cause of action is the suppression of the material fact for the second time while gaining employment for the 2^nd time. Accordingly,

¶54

9 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:108 WP No. 56202 of 2014

¶56

this Court is of view that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court has to be set-aside.

¶57

18. Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶60

(ii) The order dated 01.09.2014 in I.D.No.28/2012 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, the petition in I.D.No.28/2012 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is rejected.

¶61

(iii) No order as to cost.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶64

GVP

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Mahindra Satyam Ltd. v. Mr Ajay Bhagat (Major)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra Satyam Ltd. v. Mr Ajay Bhagat (Major)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar D (A-2) Vs State of Karnataka

Amith Vikram Rajasimha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr T P Lathamani Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Radial India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Secretary

M/S Ugra Precision Engineers Private Limited Vs Employees Provident Fund

Hanumantharayapa Vs the Chief Traffic Manager