Article 261 Of Constitution Confers Conclusiveness On Judicial Records, Can't Be Disregarded Sans Special Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, was introduced to provide legitimacy and conclusiveness regarding the records of judicial proceedings.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting an appeal filed by one Vijaya Ganapthi, a former employee of M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd against a single bench order which had rejected a plea challenging their termination and subsequent proceedings on the same before the labour court.  

Appellant contended that upon termination, there had been no settlement between him and the management and that the settlement shown before the Labour Court had been induced against his will and under duress. It was thus argued that the single judge's order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record since it did not rectify the alleged irregularity committed before the labour court. 

In upholding the order of the single bench which clarified that notwithstanding the petitioner's submissions, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that all judicial acts were regularly performed would require the petitioner to prove that the settlement before the labour court was a forced one, the Court held:

“The views of the learned Single Judge as to the regularity & truthfulness of judicial proceedings, namely those which the appellant had himself taken up in his aforesaid suit, secure succour from the inner voice of Article 261(1) of the Constitution of India. The ‘full faith and credit clause’ was introduced to provide legitimacy and conclusiveness inter alia to the records of judicial proceedings. To discredit the invocation of this important rule, the appellant has not shown to us any special circumstances.”

The management had opposed the appeal saying there was enough evidentiary material on record to demonstrate that the contention on the settlement being brought about by duress, was absolutely untrue. It was argued that pursuant to the settlement, the employee had received a sum of Rs.4,24,335/- and parted ways.

The bench further noted that the appellant had filed a civil suit wherein he had filed a Memo admitting the receipt of Rs.4,24,335, by Demand Draft, admittedly towards earned pay, notice pay and leave encashment. Accordingly, the Management’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 came to be favoured and the plaint was rejected.

 In agreeing with the submissions of the management, the Court concluded:

“Admittedly, having received a sum of Rs.4,24,335, the employee in terms of Memo dated 03.10.2012 had returned his laptop to the Management. The appellant is not an illiterate labourer or an unskilled workman. He is a qualified software engineer. His contention that he had received the amount under protest does not improve his case, especially because of the attending circumstances.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance: Advocate Prasanna for Advocate Deepa J for Appellant.

Advocate Ajesh Kumar S for Respondent.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

Case Title: Vijaya Ganapati And M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2022 (L-TER) & WRIT APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order