Karnataka High Court
M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs Mr S Krishna Murthy on 30 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 23493 OF 2021 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
NO.5/13, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGARA,BANGALORE-560 052.
PRESENTLY AT NO.744,4TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 043.REP. BY ITS HUB-LEGAL HEAD
MR. R GUNASHEKARAN (58 YEARS).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. S KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SRI SHIVARAMAIAH,
R/AT NO.619, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
BYRAVESHWARANAGARA, LAGGERE,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 058.
by BELUR ...RESPONDENT
RANGADHAMA
NANDINI (BY SRI G.V.P REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
KARNATAKA THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
AWARD DATED 28.4.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID NO.176/2013 WHICH IS AT
ANEXURE-'R' ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 24TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-2-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
CAV JUDGMENT
The petitioner-Establishment is assailing the award dated
28.04.2021 passed by the II Additional Labour Court,
Bengaluru in I.D.No.176/2013. In terms of the said award, the
order of dismissal dated 14.10.2013 passed by the petitioner-
Establishment against the respondent is set-aside. The
petitioner-Establishment is directed to reinstate the
respondent-employee to his original place with 100%
backwages.
2. The Labour Court also directed continuity of service
and all other consequential benefits and also imposed cost of
Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner-Establishment.
3. The petitioner claims that, it is a Company engaged
in providing security solutions to various Corporate Companies
across India. The respondent was appointed as a security guard
with effect from 22.06.1996 and he was promoted as security
supervisor with effect from 01.12.2004. Petitioner states that
respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.9087/- per month.
Petitioner claims that there were 25 security guards working
under the respondent-employee as the respondent was
promoted and was doing supervisory work. It is stated that the
-3-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
respondent used to mark the attendance of security guards,
sanction leave whenever the leave was sought by the security
guards and was reporting to the management about the
performance of the security guards under him.
4. On this premise, the petitioner-Establishment
primarily contends that the respondent is not a workman as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Act, 1947).
5. The petitioner also alleges that the respondent
started manipulating the attendance register, made fraudulent
entries, used to come late to work and habitually remained
away from work during working hours.
6. In this background, the petitioner issued three show
cause notices dated 24.12.2012, 29.12.2012 and 25.02.2013.
Petitioner further claims that domestic enquiry was held
pursuant to the aforementioned notices. The enquiry officer has
recorded a finding that the charges relating to being late to
report to duty and that the workman was habitually staying
away during working hours is not established.
7. However the enquiry officer found that the
respondent is guilty of charge relating to manipulating/
-4-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
tampering attendance register. Accordingly, on 14.10.2013 the
respondent was terminated from service.
8. The respondent-employee raised industrial dispute.
The petitioner raised a contention relating to maintainability of
the petition before the Labour Court on the premise that the
respondent is not a workman.
9. The Labour Court considered the contention relating
to the validity of the domestic enquiry and found that the
domestic enquiry is not fair and proper and the parties led
evidence on merits.
10. The respondent had raised a contention that he was
the General Secretary of the Union and made several demands
on behalf of the workers and for this reason the respondent-
employee was victimized. Though there were no reasons to
hold domestic enquiry, same was held. The charge relating to
the tampering of attendance register is held to be proved,
without any basis and consequently, was erroneously
terminated from service.
11. In addition, respondent also contended that he was
not working as a security supervisor, but was a security guard.
Despite changing the designation, he continued the same duty
-5-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
that he was doing earlier and the Labour Court was justified in
holding that he was a workman.
12. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence led has
come to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman
and not a supervisor and on appreciation of evidence has
concluded that the finding on misconduct against the workman
is erroneous. Thus, set-aside the order of dismissal and
awarded 100% backwages and continuity of service.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Establishment would urge that the charge relating to tampering
of attendance register is very much established. The
respondent has admitted his signature and the handwriting on
the documents confronted to him and the charge relating to
tampering the attendance register being a serious charge, the
Labour Court could not have held that the charge is not
established despite the petitioner-Establishment producing the
attendance register where the tampering is visible.
14. In addition, it is urged that the documents produced
and marked on behalf of the petitioner-Establishment would
demonstrate that, the respondent was appointed as a security
-6-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
supervisor and that being the position, the Labour Court could
not have held that the respondent was a workman.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that, the Labour Court has appreciated the
materials on record in proper perspective. The witness
examined on behalf of the Management in the cross
examination has admitted that no documents are produced to
show as to what are the duties entrusted to the respondent on
being promoted as security supervisor and without there being
any document to show as to the nature of work carried out by
the respondent in supervisory capacity, the petitioner cannot
contend that the respondent was not a workman.
16. It is also urged that the Labour Court has come to
the conclusion that the allegation relating to tampering of
records is not established. The witness examined on behalf of
the Establishment has deposed that the charge is leveled
against the respondent on the basis of a statement said to have
been made by another security guard by name Bopaiah, and
said Bopaiah is not examined. That being the position, the
evidence led on behalf of the petitioner-Establishment is not
-7-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
good enough to hold that the respondent was guilty of
tampering the attendance register.
17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
18. As far as the status of the respondent whether he
was a workman or not, has to be considered from the nature of
the work and not just by designation. Admittedly, the
respondent was appointed as a security guard and if the
respondent is a security guard given the nature of the work,
then the respondent would definitely be a workman, and on
this score is no dispute.
19. However, the petitioner claims that the respondent-
employee was promoted as security supervisor with effect from
01.12.2004 and because of the promotion as Security
Supervisor and the nature of the work done by the respondent,
he was not a workman when he was removed from service.
20. The document relating to the promotion is
produced. But what is relevant is that, the duties entrusted to
the respondent on he being promoted as a security supervisor
is not forthcoming from the said records.
-8-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
21. Though the witness examined on behalf of the
management has stated that the respondent had initiated the
disciplinary action against some of the security guards working
under his supervision, no records are produced to show that
the respondent did initiate disciplinary enquiry against security
guards.
22. In addition, though it is also urged that the
respondent used to sanction leave to the security guards who
applied for leave, the evidence on record is not good enough to
hold that the respondent was working in supervisory capacity
and not as a workman. Assuming that the respondent used to
sanction leave, that by itself is not sufficient to take a view that
the respondent was working in supervisory capacity in terms of
Section 2(s) of Act, 1947.
23. The findings of the Labour Court that the
respondent was a workman cannot be said to be a perverse
finding so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution. It is based on some evidence available
on record.
24. Insofar as the misconducts of reporting late to duty
and staying away from the place during working hours are
-9-
WP No. 23493 of 2021
concerned, the enquiry officer has held that those charges are
not proved. So the only charge that requires consideration is
whether the respondent has tampered the attendance register.
25. The Labour Court in order to conclude that the said
charge is not proved has referred to the evidence wherein the
witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that
he is not too sure about the alleged signatures of the
respondent on the attendance register. By referring to the said
statement of the witness, the Labour Court has held that the
evidence of the establishment is not sufficient to take a view
that the respondent has tampered the attendance register.
26. Though, it is alleged that the respondent used to
collect money from the security guards for altering the
attendance register, the evidence of those security guards who
allegedly paid money to the respondent is not led before the
Labour Court.
27. Moreover, it is noticed that in the cross
examination, the respondent has disputed the signatures
confronted to him.
– 10 –
WP No. 23493 of 2021
28. Under these circumstances, the Court is also of the
view that the charge relating to alteration in the attendance
register is not established.
29. The view taken by the Labour Court is based on
evidence and that is certainly one plausible view and that
cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Establishment
has not pointed out any materials to take a view that the
respondent/employee was gainfully employed after termination.
31. It is also relevant to notice that after the award
passed by the Labour Court and during the pendency of the
present writ petition, correspondence has taken place between
the petitioner and the respondent wherein the petitioner has
offered to reinstate the respondent as a security guard at a
different place in Bengaluru. The respondent appears to have
insisted for the appointment in the same place where the
respondent was working earlier before the dismissal.
32. The Labour Court has also taken note of the fact
that, the respondent is entitled to 100% backwages on the
statement made by the respondent that he is not gainfully
– 11 –
WP No. 23493 of 2021
employed elsewhere. The respondent has also produced
evidence to show that one of his son is differently abled and the
Court is of the view that the petitioner is not in a position to
establish that he was gainfully employed elsewhere after the
dismissal. Though it is quite possible to infer that the
respondent could have worked at some places after
termination, in the peculiar facts of the case where it appears
that the respondent is terminated to suppress his activities as a
General Secretary of the Union. The Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the award directing 100% backwages.
It appears the Labour Court has also taken note of the fact that
the respondent has to support his differently abled child.
33. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is engaged in
providing security solutions to various Corporate
Establishments across India and the petitioner will post the
security guards to its customers place. This being the position,
the respondent certainly cannot insist for appointment in the
same place where he was working earlier before the dismissal.
If the petitioner’s customer for whose service the respondent
was posted earlier, is not the present customer of the
petitioner, the respondent cannot insist to post him in the same
place. Even other wise, the respondent cannot insist to be
– 12 –
WP No. 23493 of 2021
posted in the same place where he was working earlier.
However, considering the fact that the respondent has a
differently abled son, and if the respondent makes a request to
post him in Bangalore where he is now residing, such request
shall be considered by the petitioner.
34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
