Karnataka High Court
Mr Krishna Raju Ananthamurthy vs Management Of Tata Consultancy ... on 13 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2039
WP No. 5397 of 2019
C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 5397 OF 2019 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 17807 OF 2019 (L-RES)
IN WP No. 5397/2019
BETWEEN:
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
SJM TOWERS, 18, SHESHADRI ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR BALLUR BHANDARY SHETTY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JASWIN JOY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by THEJAS AND:
KUMAR N
Location: HIGH 1. MR. KRISHNA RAJU ANANTHAMURTHY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. MR. ANANTHAMURTHY K.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.110, 2ND MAIN, BDA LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR, 8TH STAGE,
BENGALURU-560076.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,.
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2039
WP No. 5397 of 2019
C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL DIVISION-II,
KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
IN WP NO. 17807/2019
BETWEEN:
MR. KRISHNA RAJU ANANTHAMURTHY
S/O. MR. ANANTHAMURTHY K.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.110, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
1ST A BLOCK, NEAR NAYAK LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L.MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANAGEMENT OF TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
SJM TOWERS, 18, SHESHADRI ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JASWIN JOY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2039
WP No. 5397 of 2019
C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.12.2025, THIS DAY, AN ORDER
IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
IN WP No. 5397/2019
Sri. S.V Giridhar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Muralidhar Peshwa, counsel for the respondent No.1 and Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared in person. IN WP NO. 17807/2019
Sri. Muralidhar Peshwa, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.V Giridhar, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.
2. For convenience's sake, the ranking of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Labor Court.
3. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the country's largest private sector software company, with a workforce exceeding 4,00,000 employees operating in diverse sectors, ranging from routine banking solutions to cutting-edge Formula 1 racing technology, across various -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR geographies and time zones worldwide. The petitioner company is recognized world over for its best human resources practices. The petitioner has several offices and establishments in the city of Bengaluru. There are various projects undertaken in diverse fields, including banking, healthcare, aviation, and others.
4. The respondent submitted his resume to seek an appointment at the petitioner's company. Before joining the petitioner's company, the respondent had a work experience of thirteen years collectively in the four different organizations namely Ashoka Leyland, TVS Motors Ltd, Forward Matrix Malaysia, and Heikal Magnetics Pvt. Ltd., and had worked in supervisory and managerial positions in the last two organisations before joining the petitioner's company. Before joining the petitioners' company, the respondent worked in managerial positions with reputed organizations. Based on his prior work experience, the respondent was hired in TCS to the post of Assistant Consultant in C3A, which is equivalent to the rank of manager in the petitioner's company, vide offer letter dated 23.11.2011 with a salary package of Rs.10,04,944/- per annum. The respondent accepted the terms and conditions of the offer letter and joined the services of the petitioner's company on 11.01.2012.
5. After joining the TCS, the respondent worked in three projects in the managerial cadre in the petitioner's company, where -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR he was required to perform tasks such as interacting with clients on projects and modules, functioning as a Senior Lead Member of the team, carrying out highly specialized tasks involving a considerable amount of mental input, imagination and creativity, to make decisions relating to designs, modules, and conduct review meetings with the client, customers, advising, training software engineers, etc. In addition to the above work, the respondent was also responsible for the development of new designs or improving existing designs and doing innovative work, independently handling the work, interacting with the customers, and moreover allotting the work to other subordinate team members and guiding them.
6. The senior employees in the managerial cadre are subject to review and assessment of the suitability of their skill sets for the projects undertaken by the company. This review is done by the head of the unit, in consultation with the concerned employee's superiors. After the above review, the employees whose skill sets are found not to match the requirements of the organization are put through the exit process. A detailed process has been put in place to deal with the exit process in a human way. The employee will be given one month's notice during which he is provided with garden leave to look after a new job. The company pays full salary during this period but does not assign any work to such an employee. The -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR company enables outplacement help through its recruitment consultants to such employees, although the contract did not match the requirements of the projects undertaken by the company.
7. The work performance of the respondent was not satisfactory, and he was not meeting the expectations of the project assigned to him. The respondent was advised many times to improve his work performance. In spite of that, no improvement was shown by him. The petitioner company, having no other alternate decided to discharge his services and accordingly, notices of discharge were given to him on 07.01.2015, which was also served on him on 12.01.2015, mentioning that his services would stand discharged from the 30th day of the service of notice. The discharge of the respondent was in accordance with the terms of the appointment, and the company had given him a one-month notice before terminating the services. Moreover, the petitioner had issued the services certificate to the respondent, and the reasons for discharge have not been mentioned with the sole object of not affecting his future career.
8. Aggrieved by the termination order, the respondent approached the State Government of Karnataka, which has vide Order dated 20.08.2015, referred the matter to the Labour Court in Ref NO 45 of 2015 for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR vide Award dated 24.11.2018 allowed the reference. Under these circumstances, the company has filed the writ petition. The respondent No.1 has also filed the writ petition as far as denial of full back wages are concerned. The petitioners in both cases have taken several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.
9. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions and relied on the following decisions. Petitioners Citations:
1. BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
VS. R.A.BIDOO AND ANOTHER - 1989 SCC ONLINE BOM
124.
2. S.K.MANI VS. M/S. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS - (1994) 3 SCC 510.
3. SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. ANIT SINGH - (2005) 3 SCC 232.
4. BANK OF BARODA VS. GHEMARBHAI HARJIBHAI RABARI -
(2005) 10 SCC 792.
5. INTHRU NORONHA VS. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD.
AND OTHERS- 2005 SCC ONLINE BOM 47.
6. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VS. VANDANA JOSHI AND ANOTHER - 2010 (2) M.H.Lj.
7. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VS. A.S.RAGHAVENDRA - (2024) 6 SCC 148.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR
8. ROHIT DEMBIWAL VS. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS - 2024 SCC ONLINE BOM 6.
9. N.BHUVANESHWARI VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD., (SOHAM GROUP OF COMPANIES) - 2024 SCC ONLINE KAR 8645.
10. LENIN KUMAR RAY VS. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.- 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2987.
11. ARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO VS CIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LIMITED BOMBAY (1985) 3 SCC 371.
12. MAHAJAN BOREWELL COMPANY VS RAJARAM BHAT AND ANOTHER ILR 1998 KAR 172.
13. M/S PAM NETWORK LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS SRI. B BALAKRISHNA ILR 2010 KAR 3539.
14. JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 141/2020 CLUBBED WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 151/2020.
Respondents Citations:
1. VED PRAKASH GUPTA VS. M/S DELTON CABLE INDIA (P) LTD. - (1984) 2 SCC 569.
2. COLOUR CHEM LTD. VS. A.L.ALASPURKAR AND OTHERS -
(1998) 3 SCC 192.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. RAJINDER KUMAR KINDRA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION -
AIR 1984 (SC) 1805.
4. DEEPALI GUNDU SURVASE VS. KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA (D.Ed.) AND OTHERS - (2013) 10 SCC 324.
5. HARJINDER SIGH VS. PUNJAB WAREHOUSING CORPORATION - (2010) 3 SCC 192.
6. ANANDBAZAAR PATRIKE (P) LTD. VS. WORKMEN - (1970) 3 SCC 248.
7. DEVINDER SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SANUAR -
(2011) 6 SCC 584.
8. ITA NO.141/2020 DATED 21.04.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
9. ARKAL GOVINDA RAJ RAO VS. CIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LTD., BOMBAY - (1985) 3 SCC 371.
10. MAHAJAN BOREWELL COMPANY VS. SRI RAJARAM BHAT AND ANOTHER - ILR 1998 KAR 172.
11. M/S PAM NETWORK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. SRI B. BALAKRISHNA - ILR 2010 KAR 3539.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the papers and records with care.
11. The following points would arise for consideration.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR
(i) Did the Labor Court justify its holding that the first party is a workman?
(ii) Did the Labor Court act within its authority and reason correctly in deeming the termination invalid and ordering reinstatement?
12. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. One of the issues relates to the status of the first party; the key is to focus on the predominant nature of duties rather than the job title. It is not in dispute that before joining the petitioners' company, the respondent worked in managerial positions with reputed organizations and based on his prior work experience, TCS hired him to the post of Assistant Consultant in C3A, which is equivalent to the rank of manager in the petitioner's company.
13. Contending that he is a workman, the first party sought reference, and the government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labor Court. It was the contention of the company before the Labour Court that the first party did not fall within the definition of 'workman'. That preliminary objection is maintained and pressed in the present Court also. In other words, the management had resisted the claim before the Labor Court by raising a preliminary objection that the first party is not a 'workman' within the meaning and definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR the said contention is adhered to/reiterated in the present proceedings also. The Labor Court has held that the first party is a 'workman' on two grounds: first, that the company failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the nature of the work performed by the first party; and second, that the work involved is technical in nature. To be precise, the finding of the Labour Court, classifying the first party as a 'workman', rests upon two main pillars: the respondent company's inability to sufficiently substantiate the nature of the work performed through documentary evidence, and the Court's observation that the work in question is technical in nature.
14. One of the primary grounds for this petition (W.P.NO. 5397/2019) is that the Labor Court erred in determining that the First Party satisfies the criteria to be classified as a 'workman' under the relevant Act. The petitioner's arguments are, in my view, meritorious for the following reasons.
15. The Court misdirected itself in determining the status of the first party as a 'workman', overlooking key precedents and evidence regarding the actual duties and responsibilities. The Labour Court has erred in fact and in law in concluding that the company has not produced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the nature of the work performed by the first party.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR
16. It is a settled proposition of law that the burden of proof to establish the status of a 'workman' is on the person making the claim. Generally, the party that asserts a positive fact bears the initial burden of proving it. In employment disputes, the employee claiming himself as a workman or wrongful termination must first provide some evidence to establish his claim. Once the employee discharges their initial burden by presenting credible evidence, the onus (or evidential burden) shifts to the employer to refute the claim with their own documentary evidence. Courts generally avoid requiring a party to prove a negative proposition if the relevant facts are especially within the knowledge of the other party.
17. In the present case, the Labor Court erred in law by placing the burden on the company/Management to prove a negative proposition, specifically that the first party was not a workman.The Labor Court committed a grave error by drawing an adverse inference against the company for not producing records, without first requiring the first party to provide prima facie evidence of his status. The documentary evidence presented by the Company clearly discharged its burden, which the Labour Court overlooked.
18. The determination regarding the technical nature of the work rested exclusively on the self-serving testimony provided by the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR first party. The central point is that an employee's self-serving statement about their work nature is not conclusive proof; the determination of "workman" status must be based on the dominant nature of actual duties and functions, supported by cogent evidence. The Labor Court's decision on the nature of the work lacked a proper evidentiary foundation, relying merely on the ipse dixit (an unproven statement) of the first party. In my view, the Labor Court did not apply the 'dominant nature of duties' test correctly and placed undue emphasis on incidental functions, ignoring the substantive technical responsibilities of the post.
19. The first party cannot be considered a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the dominant nature of the employment involved highly specialized, imaginative, and creative intellectual work, not manual, skilled, or clerical work as contemplated by the Act. The work performed required by the first party a significant amount of mental input and independent judgment, which falls outside the scope of duties typically associated with a 'workman' under the prevailing judicial precedents. As the first party was doing creative work, he cannot be considered a workman. In Indian labour law, a person primarily involved in imaginative and creative work is generally not classified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR This is because such work is considered different from the manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory tasks explicitly listed in the definition of a workman.
20. I have no hesitation in concluding that the Labour Court incorrectly held that the first party is a workman, overlooking the essential criteria required to satisfy the statutory definition. The finding of the Labor Court regarding the status of the first party as a 'workman' is unsustainable in law and fact. This Court finds the claimant is not a 'workman' as defined by the ID Act, consequently lacking entitlement to its statutory benefits.
21. Let me address the second issue, regarding the alleged illegal termination and the direction for reinstatement.
22. Regarding the second issue, a prerequisite for a comprehensive answer is an understanding of the organization's culture concerning feedback and performance evaluation.
23. Many software companies foster a culture of continuous feedback, where employees receive informal input regularly to refine their skills and boost performance. They also prioritise constant feedback loops and informal check-ins over formal annual reviews to foster immediate skill development and performance improvement. Performance feedback and reviews are given to employees by
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR their superiors, who are most familiar with their day-to-day work. This feedback is a structured assessment used for employee development, performance improvement, and to ensure alignment with company goals. The senior managerial employees will undergo a comprehensive skills assessment to evaluate the alignment of their skill sets with project requirements. In other words, a skills audit is being conducted for the managerial cadre to determine the ongoing suitability of their expertise for current and upcoming company projects.
24. Focusing back on the facts of the situation, as the respondent's skills did not align with the evolving requirements of the company's current/ongoing projects, there was a misalignment between his capabilities and the evolving project requirements. He received feedback for work performance improvement, given his senior status and the upcoming management of a high-profile project. Due to the misalignment between his current skill set and the evolving requirements of the company's projects, he was advised to enhance his professional development and improve his work performance. After being politely advised to improve his work performance, and with no subsequent improvement noted, the company decided to terminate his employment. However, this narrative was countered by the Labor Court's decision, which
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR ultimately determined the first party to be a good performer. The Labour Court's finding that the First Party was a good performer is a finding of fact based on no evidence and thus constitutes an error of law which warrants correction.
25. The Labour Court was influenced by the fact that the first Party was chosen for the UK's JLA project, which required him to travel there. The Labor Court found that the selection of the First Party's name and the subsequent requirement for its on-site presence in the UK for the JLA Project significantly swayed its determination/decision.
26. In my view, the Labor Court's conclusion that the first party was a strong or a good performer was narrowly predicated on the single instance of the UK project, potentially ignoring other key performance metrics. The Labor Court's finding that the first party was a good performer was heavily predicated on the isolated fact of his selection for the on-site UK project, potentially overlooking other relevant performance indicators. The finding appears to establish a causal link between the selection for the UK project and a finding of good performance, a link which may not be fully supported by the full scope of evidence presented. While securing the UK project and visa sponsorship is positive, these factors alone aren't sufficient proof of high performance; actual project delivery, impact, and skill
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR demonstration are key indicators. Assignment to a UK project and visa facilitation by the company are logistical arrangements, not conclusive evidence of superior performance, which must be evaluated through objective metrics like results, client feedback, and contribution to objectives. The Labour Court's decision involves a clearly erroneous interpretation of a material fact, specifically regarding the nature and purpose of feedback and work performance evaluations in the employment context, which resulted in an unjust outcome.
27. Lastly, though it is not strictly required to address the communication sent to Mr.Steve Lewin, this Court incidentally observes that the first party breached protocol by sending the communication without the management's consent.
28. The Court's understanding of the matter is, in my view, incorrect/misguided. On a true appreciation of the facts and in all the circumstances of the case, the finding that the first party is a 'workman' is unsustainable in law, and the consequential direction for reinstatement cannot be upheld as such; the award is liable to be set aside.
29. Based on the factual matrix of the case, the claim statement must fail.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2039 WP No. 5397 of 2019 C/W WP No. 17807 of 2019 HC-KAR
30. The writ of certiorari is issued. The award dated 24.11.2018, passed by the Labor Court in Ref No. 45/2015, is quashed.
31. The writ petition No.5397/2019 is allowed. In view of the dismissal of the claim statement, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the present writ petition in W.P.No.17807/2019. Resultantly, it is dismissed.
Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on several decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the decisions referred to supra.
Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4