- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Filing False Case Of Assault...
Filing False Case Of Assault Against Senior Manager By Employee Amounts To Misconduct: Karnataka High Court
Mustafa Plumber
10 Oct 2025 1:53 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed the petition filed by G Mahesh and said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,...
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.
Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed the petition filed by G Mahesh and said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, considering the fact that the petitioner is differently abled, with less employment opportunities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000. In exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner, confirming the order of dismissal.”
The workman was placed under suspension on 02.02.2009, and later a chargesheet was issued on 06.02.2009. In the chargesheet, the respondent---the Management of M/s Teknic Euchner Electronics Pvt Ltd, had referred to the incident dated 16.01.2009, alleging that the workman had in chamber of Mr. Kennedy, himself inflicted the injury on his head with a paper weight and fell unconscious and later, lodged a complaint with the police (on the same day in the evening after being discharged from the hospital) against Mr. Kennedy, alleging that Kennedy assaulted him.
The charge levelled against the petitioner was of attempting to malign the Officers of the Company and disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the Company. Willful or irresponsible action resulting in damage to the Company's reputation and falsifying evidence.
A domestic enquiry was conducted. However, in the midst of the enquiry, the workman disrupted the proceedings and did not cooperate for a smooth enquiry and for this reason, the enquiry was abandoned, and later the respondent- Management imposed a penalty of dismissal, holding that all charges were established.
The same was referred to the labour court, which held that the charge relating to a false complaint is established. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner had interfered in the disciplinary proceeding and upheld the penalty of dismissal by rejecting the Claim Petition. The same was challenged in the High Court.
Background
The petitioner argued that the alleged assault by the petitioner on himself is not established, and in fact, it was Kennedy who assaulted the petitioner. It was claimed that no eye-witness was examined to prove the charges. Domestic enquiry was abandoned in the middle, and any evidence led in said domestic enquiry cannot be looked into to establish the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the finding of misconduct by the disciplinary authority recorded in respect of the alleged disruption in the domestic enquiry is without any charge memo or enquiry.
The respondent opposed the plea, submitting that the Police submitted a 'B' report holding that Kennedy had not assaulted the petitioner and the petitioner had assaulted himself; the same is not challenged.
Even assuming that the domestic enquiry was inconclusive, as it was abandoned in the middle, the evidence was led before the Labour Court to show that the 'B' report filed by the Police is not challenged and is accepted by the petitioner.
The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the 'B' report establishes the fact that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint and the finding that the petitioner has filed a false complaint is sufficient enough to impose a penalty of dismissal from service, is the submission on behalf of the respondent.
The bench noted that it was true that there was no charge relating to the disruption of the domestic enquiry and threat to the witnesses, and the order of dismissal is also based on the alleged disruption in the domestic enquiry.
It referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs The Management and Ors. and Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited vs Motipur Sugar Factory.
Then held, “The Labour Court is competent to try the issues based on the pleadings before it. In such an event the parties are entitled to lead evidence on the matters in controversy. This being the position, the lapses or shortcomings in the domestic enquiry are cured in the fresh trial conducted by the Labour Court.”
Refusing to accept the reasoning of the labour court on denying the occurrence of the incident of assault the bench said, “This Court is not convinced about the reasoning of the Labour Court in observing that "it is not at all possible and probable for M.W.1 to drag W.W.1 and then assault him on his head with the paperweight that too in his chambers". The said conclusion is not supported by any acceptable reasoning, moreso in a situation where the petitioner is admittedly a differently abled person.”
Also, the Labour Court had held that what happened in the chamber of Kennedy is visible outside the chamber, and the workers outside the chamber would have witnessed the incident.
“This Court is of the view that it is one of the possibilities. It is quite possible that the workers outside the chamber who are engrossed in the work might not have witnessed the alleged incident,” it said.
Noting that the petitioner had not challenged the 'B' report submitted by the Police. It said, “From the inaction on the part of the workman, in not taking further steps to challenge 'B' report, one can conclude that the allegation that Mr. Kennedy has hit the petitioner is not established. Thus, finding of the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse and it is indeed a plausible view.”
Stating that “This Court is of the view that the finding relating to false complaint by the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous and capable of correction in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though from some perspective the theory of petitioner hitting himself on his forehead appears to be doubtful.”
It said, “The finding relating to the alleged disruption and interference is not supported by analysis of evidence though both parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The finding on the said charge as already noticed is just based on casual reference to the statements by the witnesses examined by the respondent.”
The court said, “Though the proven misconduct enabled the respondent to impose penalty of dismissal and the Labour Court upheld the penalty of dismissal on the premise that both charges are proved, this Court has taken a view that only one charge is proved by applying the test of 'preponderance of probability'.”
Upholding the dismissal order of the Labour court, the court said, “This Court is of the view that it is a peculiar case where the contention that the petitioner hit himself is not proved with concrete evidence. At the same time, the petitioner's contention that Mr.Kennedy assaulted the petitioner is also not proved though the 'B' report would indicate that petitioner assaulted himself. Thus by reason of logic, the petitioner's complaint against Mr.Kennedy is to be held as a false complaint.”
Taking into consideration that the petitioner was differently abled and securing employment after dismissal was not an easy task. As the award was of the year 2013 and the incident was of the year 2009, it refused to remit the matter back for fresh consideration and directed the company to pay him compensation.
Appearance: Advocate Raghavendra S H for Petitioner.
Advocate Prashanth B K for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Case Title: G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25658 OF 2014