The Management of M/S. G4S Secure Solutions Pvt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Management of M/S. G4S Secure Solutions Pvt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitions allowed in part: (i) back wages payable to the workman for the period from the date of termination till the date of the award fixed at 30% (modifying the Labour Court's 50%); (ii) 100% back wages payable from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement; (iii) the remaining part of the Labour Court award (reinstatement with consequential benefits) left undisturbed; (iv) compliance ordered within two months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the respondent-workman effected without any enquiry, show cause notice or charge memo was illegal and liable to be interfered with +3 more

Court's answer

The order of termination was passed without proper enquiry - admittedly no enquiry was held, no show cause notice was issued and no charge memo was issued - and hence the Labour Court rightly interfered with and set aside the order of termination.

Ratio / Principle

Designation by itself is not sufficient to hold that the respondent was not a workman; the nature of work carried out has to be looked into, and the Labour Court's finding that the respondent was not a supervisor but a workman was accepted.

Key takeaways

The petitioner-management failed to establish that the respondent was working as a supervisor - the promotion letter at Annexure-B dated 15.05.2008 does not specifically reveal the nature of work to be performed - while the respondent established that he was working as a workman.ratio¶78
Merely because one more view is plausible, the Court is not obligated to interfere with the view taken by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Anant Ramanath Hegde J. - WP No. 55168/2018 (L-RES) c/w WP No. 9965/2021 (L-TER), order dated 12.01.2026: Both writs arising out of the award dated 08.11.2017 of the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No.114/2013 were allowed in part. The award had set aside the removal from service (09.05.2013) of C. Ramakrishnaiah, employed since 15.05.1998 as a security guard, who refused a transfer from Yeshwanthapura to Nelamangala (order dated 12.01.2013), and had directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. Upholding the award, the Court held that termination without any enquiry, show cause notice or charge memo was without proper enquiry and rightly interfered with by the Labour Court; that designation alone does not decide 'workman' status under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - the nature of duties must be examined, and the respondent was held to be a workman, not a supervisor (the promotion letter Annexure-B dated 15.05.2008 not revealing the nature of work); and that under Article 227 interference is not obligatory merely because another view is plausible. On back wages, the Court awarded 30% (in place of the Labour Court's 50%) for the termination-to-award period on the possibility of interim employment elsewhere, and full (100%) back wages from the award date until reinstatement on 23.09.2019, noting no stay had operated. Compliance within two months.

NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 55168 OF 2018 (L-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 9965 OF 2021 (L-TER) IN WP No. 55168/2018

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.5/13, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052 PRESENTLY AT NO.744, 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK HBR LAYOUT, HORAMAVU BANGALORE - 560 043. REP. BY ITS HUB-ER-LEAD MR. C SRINIVASAN.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.623, 1ST MAIN, BYRAVESHWARANAGAR,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 058 PRESENTLY AT NO.15/A, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS BHAIRAVESHWARA NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 058

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 8.11.2017 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.114/2013 AT ANNEXURE-N AND HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF AND ETC.,

IN WP NO. 9965/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI. C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAPPA R/A NO.623, 1ST MAIN BYRAVESHWARANAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. G4 SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NO.5/13, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 052 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J, ADVOCATE)

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THAT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 08.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.114/2013 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, BY WHICH THE LABOUR COURT HAS DENIED 50 PER CENT BACK WAGES, TO THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY REASONS.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent/workman.

The Management is referred to as petitioner and the workman is referred to as respondent.

The petitioner has filed WP.No.55168/2018 challenging the award dated 08.11.2017 passed in Industrial Dispute No.114/2013 by the Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement and payment of 50% backwages.

NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

4 -

HC-KAR

The respondent has filed WP.No.9965/2021 challenging the aforesaid award denying 50% backwages.

Certain facts are not in dispute. The

respondent joined the employment under the establishment on 15.05.1998 as a security guard. The petitioner claims that the respondent was promoted as security supervisor w.e.f. 15.05.2008. It is stated that on 12.01.2013, the respondent was transferred to Nelamangala from Yeshwanthapura and the petitioner alleges that the respondent refused to obey the transfer order and submitted two applications expressing his inability to join the work at Nelamangala i.e. to the transferred place. Thereafter, on 31.01.2013, abscond notice was issued and on 09.05.2013, the respondent was removed from service. Hence, the dispute is raised.

Before the Labour Court, the respondent contended that the termination order is illegal as no inquiry was held and no charge memo was issued and the

NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

5 -

HC-KAR

Labour Court noticed the fact that there is violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).

The petitioner contends that since the respondent refused to work in transferred place, as such, there was no need to hold inquiry and it is not disputed fact that there is nothing to be inquired into. The Labour Court has considered the materials placed on record and set aside the order of termination on the premise that no inquiry is held and directed payment of 50% backwages and also directed for reinstatement. The Labour Court also awarded consequential benefits and continuity of service.

Learned counsel for petitioner would urge that the Labour Court committed an error in setting aside the order of termination as the misconduct is very much admitted as the respondent refused to join the employment at the transferred place. It is his further submission that the respondent cannot make a claim that

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

he has to be allowed to work only in a particular place and being the employee, he is required to attend the work at the transferred place and the transfer order was passed transferring the respondent from Yeshwanthapura to Nelamangala and both places being in Bengaluru, the respondent has shown insubordination and misconduct by not attending the work at the transferred place.

It is also his further submission that award of 50% backwages is totally impermissible and the principle of 'no work no pay' would apply and would urge that the award has to be set aside.

The respondent has aged parents living with him and his kids are also living with him and he requested to reconsider the transfer order and to permit him to work in the same place where he was working before the transfer order. In addition, the learned counsel for respondent would also urge the denial of 50% backwages which is impermissible as the termination order is passed

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

in violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Section 25 of the Act. Thus, he would urge that the respondent has to be awarded full back wages.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

The respondent was working with the petitioner since 1998. This fact is not in dispute. When the petitioner transferred the respondent from Yeshwanthpur to Nelamangala, the respondent responded to the said order by making a request that he should be allowed to work in Yeshwanthapur. However, the petitioner has not responded to the said letter noticing the fact that the respondent has not attended to work at Nelamangala i.e., the transferred place, the absconding notice was issued and to this notice, there was no response from the respondent. Thus, the interim order of termination is passed.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

Admittedly, the enquiry is not held and show cause notice is not issued and also charge memo is not issued. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination order without enquiry is illegal.

Though the learned counsel for petitioner would urge that there was nothing to be enquired into inasmuch as given the fact that the respondent has not joined the employment at the transferred place, what is required to be noticed is in his letter that the respondent has made a request to retain him at the place where he was working earlier before the transfer order.

The Court is of the view that when respondent has not joined the place where he has transferred and the petitioner ought to have issued a show cause notice.

Although it is urged by the petitioner that the respondent was a supervisor and he does not fall under the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2 of

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

the Act, the Court is of the view that the designation by itself is not sufficient to hold that he was not a workman. The nature of work carried out by the respondent has to be looked into. The finding in the award is that, he is a workman. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has stressed on Exhibit M8 i.e., the letters which have been written by the respondent, the Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner to hold that the respondent has discharged the duty of a supervisor. The Labour Court has looked into the aforementioned documents and has come to the conclusion that the respondent was not a supervisor and he was a workman.

It is settled position of law that merely because one more view is plausible, the Court is not obligated to interfere with the said view in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

The promotion letter marked at Annexure-B which is dated 15.05.2008 also does not specifically reveal the nature of the work to be performed by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is not in a position to establish that the respondent was working as a supervisor and the respondent has established that he was working as a workman.

Since the Court has already come to the conclusion that the order of termination is without proper enquiry, the order of termination is rightly interfered with by the Labour Court.

As far as the contention relating to back wages is concerned, the petitioner would urge that the Labour Court is not justified in awarding 50% back wages. His contention is that 'no work, no wage' principle should have been applied. Learned counsel for the respondent has

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

HC-KAR

urged for 100% back wages on the premise that the termination notice is said to be illegal.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and it has noticed the fact that the respondent is reinstated with effect from 23.09.2019 and impugned award is passed on 08.11.2017. The reinstatement has not taken place immediately after the impugned award and there was no stay granted by this Court.

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to full backwages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.

As far as the Labour Court awarding 50% back wages is concerned, the Court is of the view that given the nature of the work, the respondent was doing before termination, it is quite possible that he might have been employed when the proceeding was pending before the Labour Court. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has awarded 50% backwages and the Court finds

NC: 2026:KHC:1741 WP No. 55168 of 2018 C/W WP No. 9965 of 2021

12 -

HC-KAR

that 50% back wages may not be appropriate and the respondent will be entitled to 30% back wages. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) Both petitions are allowed in part .

b) The respondent is entitled to 30% backwages from the date of termination till the date of award.

c) The respondent is also entitled to 100% backwages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement.

d) The remaining part of the award is not interfered with.

e) The order shall be complied within two months from today.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36