M/S Transystem Logistics International Private Limited v. The President

NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(16 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ANANT(RAMANATH(HEGDE(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(1394(OF(2026((L-RES)(

BETWEEN:((

( M/S,TRANSYSTEM,LOGISTICS,INTERNATIONAL, PRIVATE,LIMITED,,TOYOTA,TECHNO,PARK,,

NO.20,,BIDADI,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,, RAMANAGARA,,, NOW,SHIFTED,AND,SITUATED,AT,NO.68,,, ND BIDADI,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,,2 ,PHASE,,, SECTOR,2,,RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT,, BENGALURU,562,109.,

REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, ASSISTANT,GENERAL,MANAGER-HR,, SRI,A.SHIVAPRASAD,,

REGISTERED,UNDER,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,S,N,MURTHY.,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR,,

,,,,,,SRI.SOMASHEKAR.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

( Digitallytisigned 1., THE,PRESIDENT, by0PRAMILA0G TRANSYSTEM,LOGISTIC,INTERNATIONAL,, V PRIVATE,LIMITED,,KARMIKARA,UNION,,,Location:0HIGH COURT0OF D.RAJANNA,BUILDING,, KARNATAKA BEHIND,ICICI,BANK,,BYRAVANADODDI,, BIDADI,HOBLI,,RAMANAGARA., ,

2., THE,GENERAL,MANAGER, M/S.GENIUS,CONSULTANTS,LIMITED,, HAVING,ITS,ADDRESS,AT,"MANIPAL,CENTRE",,, THNO.S-402,,SOUTH,BLOCK,,4 ,FLOOR,, 47,,DICKENSON,ROAD,,BENGALURU,560,042., NOW,SHIFTED,AND,SITUATED,AT, RDBMS,PLADIUM,,19/3,,3 ,FLOOR,,, CUNNINGHAM,ROAD,,BENGALURU,560,052., NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( (

3., THE,SECRETARY,TO,GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY,OF,LABOUR,AND,EMPLOYMENT,, SHRAM,SHAKTHI,BHAVAN,,RAFI,MARG,, NEW,DELHI,-,110,001., ,

4., SRI.LAKSHMINARASAIAH,M, S/O,MUDALAGIRIYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS,, NO.255,,AMBEDKAR,CIRCLE,,, TOTADAGUDDALI,NAGASANDRA,, DASANPURA,,BENGALURU,EAST,, BENGALURU,,-,73., ,

5., SRI.MRUTHUNJAYA,R,, S/O,RUDRAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,, BASAVANAPALYA,,TAVAREKERE,, BENGALURU,,-,562,130., ,

6., SRI.JAYAGOPAL,H,, S/O,HANUMANTE,GOWDA,H,P,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, HALENA,HALLI,,NARASIPURA,, NELAMANGALA,,BENGALURU,-,562,111., ,

7., SRI.RAJESH,KUMAR,YADAV,, S/O,HARI,SHANKAR,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,, HARSINGH,PUR,,TILTHI,MIRJAPUR,, MIRJAPUR,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,231,312., ,

8., SRI.AJESH,KUMAR,YADAV,, S/O,DOODHNATH,YADAV,,, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,, PURE,MEHARBANKA,,PURWA,BAIJAPUR,, SADER,SULTANPUR,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,228,001., ,

9., SRI.,KAPOOR,CHAND,, S/O,MATA,PRASAD,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,, KAK,RAHI,,GOPIGANG,,GYANPUR, BHADOHI,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,02547., NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( (

10., SRI.,LAL,CHANDRA,YADAV,, S/O,RATIRAM,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,, DALAPUR(DHANIPUR),,, LAKHIPUR,KAPSA,PATTI, PRATAP,GARH,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,230,138., ,

11., SRI.,CHAND,YADAV,, S/O,SRI.,MATAPRASAD,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, KAKRAHI,CHAVBAN,GOPIGANG,, GYANPUR,BHADOHI,,, UTTAR,PRADESH,-,02547., ,

12., SRI.BRIJALAL,YADAV,, S/O,RAM,LAKAN,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, KAKARAHI,PURASAMBUPUR,,, GOPI,GANJ,GYANPUR,,, SANT,RAVIDAS,NAGAR,-,221,547., ,

13., SRI.RAMJEETH,YADAV,, S/O,RAM,BAHADUR,YADAV,,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, KOPA,GAURAMPHI,PATTI,,PRATAP,GARH,, UTTAR,PRADESH,-,230,124., ,

14., SRI.HARISH,CHANDRA,YADAV,, S/O,MATA,PRASAD,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, KAKRAHI,CHAUBAN,,, GOPI,GANJ,GYANPUR,BHADOHI,, UTTAR,PRADESH,-,02547, ,

15., SRI.RAMESH,CHAND,DUBEY,, S/O,SITALAL,PRASAD,DUBAY,,, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, BAISUKHIA,NEVIL,SADAR,,MIRJAPUR,, UTTAR,PRADESH,-,231,001., ,

16., SRI.,SAHAJAN,O.V,, S/O,KANNAN,, NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS,, ODAMPARAMPIL,,PACHENI,THIRUVATOOR,, THALIPARAMBU,,KANNUR,,KERALA,-,670,141., ,

17., SRI.,JAI,SINGH,YADAV,, S/O,RAM,CHANDRA,YADAV,,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, KOPA,GAURAMAPHI,PATTI,, PRATAPGARH,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,230,124., ,

18., SRI.AWADESH,KUMAR,YADAV,, S/O,GURUCHARAN,RAI,,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, CHANDANPUR,,RAMPUR,KALA,(KHAIRA),, NAGRA,CHAPRA,,(SARAN),BIHAR,-,841,414., ,

19., SRI.,RANGASWAMY,G,, S/O,GIRIYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,, MARIKANIVI,,HIRIYURU,, CHITRADURGA,-,577,599., ,

20., SRI.VENKATA,RATHNAPPA,, S/O,TIRUMALPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, HARLAGUNTE,,YELUR,, SRINIVASPURA,,KOLAR,, KARNATAKA,-,563,138., ,

21., SRI.AJITH,KUBER,DEVALPUR,, S/O,KUBER,JALAPAR,,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,, AROBANETH,BYLAHONGALA,,, BYLAHONGALA,,BELGAUM,-,591,121., ,

22., SRI.MOHAMMAD,MATEEN,, C/O,VIVEK,,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, SILK,FARM,,OPP,SLN,PUBLIC,SCHOOL,, BIDADI,RAMANAGARAM,,, RAMANAGARAM-,562,109., , NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( (

23., SRI.M.N.LOKANA,GOWDA,, S/O,BOGAPPA,M,,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, JHOLADA,RASHI,,BELLARY,, KARNATAKA,-,583,111., ,

24., SRI.,ARMUGAM,SHAMY,Y,, S/O,KARPAHI,,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,, #263,,GUDWEL,VETRANIYAN,KULLNGUDI,, KOYAL,SIVGANGE,-,630,556., ,

25., SRI.,RANGE,GOWDA,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, #08,,VENKATAPATI,BUILDING,, STOPP,MUNESHWARA,TEMPLE,,1 ,MAIN,ROAD,, GORAGUNTE,PALYA,,BENGALURU,-,22., ,

26., SRI.RAVI,KUMAR,S,R,, S/O,RAJ,SHEKHAR,,, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,, SAKLESHPUR,,HAREHALLI,ROAD,, AGRAHAR,SAKLESHPUR,,HASSAN, KARNATAKA,-,573,134., ,

27., SRI.SRINIVAS,REDDY,K,, S/O,RAMSUBBA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,, JOGARDODDI,BIDADI,, RAMANAGARAM,,KARNATAKA,-,562,109., ,

28., SRI.VIMELESH,KUMAR,YADAV,, S/O,GORKANATH,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,, SHAYARA,,JAMAANEYA,,GEHPUR,-,232,327., ,

29., SRI.SRINIVASULU,S,, S/O,SHAMANNA,M,,, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS,, PEDDABANGARUNANATHAM,,KUPPAM,, CHITTOR,,ANDRA,PRADESH,-,514,725., , NC:(2026:KHC:15399( WP(No.(1394(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( (

30., SRI.BHARATHRAM,YADAV,, S/O,RAM,KHELAVAN,YADAV,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,, TILTHI,,MIRJAPUR,,UTTAR,PRADESH,-,231,312., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.NAGYANATARA,B,G.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3;, R2,SERVED;, V.C.O,DATED,24/2/2026,,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,HELD,SUFFICIENT;, SRI.,MURALIDHAR,PESHWA.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4,TO,R30), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, CENTRAL,GOVERNMENT,NOTIFICATION,DATED,08.12.2025,AT, ANNEXURE, D, TO, THIS, WRIT, PETITION, AND, QUASH, ORDER, DATED, 12.12.2025, IN, REF.NO.024/2008, PASSED, BY, THE, PRINCIPAL, LABOUR, COURT,, BENGALURU, ON, I.A.NO.VI, AT, ANNEXURE,G.,, , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,ANANT,RAMANATH,HEGDE, , ORAL(ORDER( , Heard, the, learned, Senior, Counsel, appearing, for, the, petitioner, and, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, respondents/impleading,applicants,No.4,to,30,on,the,merits, of,the,matter,as,well,as,on,I.A.,No.1/2026.,,

¶2I.A.,No.1/2026,is,filed,by,the,respondents,No.4,to, 30,, who, claim, that, they, have, independently, filed, vakalath, before, the, Labour, Court., , It, is, submitted, by, the, learned, counsel, for, the, proposed, respondents, No.4, to, 30, that, the,

Union is not presently functioning and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court pursuant to the writ petitions No.13751/2012 to 13916/2012, filed by respondents No.4 to 30, as such, they are also entitled to participate in the proceeding and the impugned order is in their favour and in case they are not heard on the merits of the matter, in case the impugned order is set-aside, it will affect.

¶3Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would oppose the application on the premise that the dispute is raised by the Union and Union is made a party in the present proceeding and Union is served, as such, the respondent No.4 to 30 cannot come on record to oppose the petition.

¶4The Court has considered the contentions raised in this behalf.

¶5It is not in dispute that the writ petitions No.13751-13916/2012 were filed by 166 workmen and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court to permit the parties to lead evidence on three additional issues framed by

this Court.

¶6Though it is true that the Union is made a party, and the notice is served on the Union, what is required to be noticed is, there is no representation on behalf of the Union.

¶7Though the learned senior counsel would urge that Union is still in existence, it is to be noticed that before this Court, there is no representation on behalf of the Union. Considering the fact that the 116 workmen had filed writ petition earlier and the proposed respondents No.4 to 30 are among the said 116 workmen and they have already filed vakalath before the Labour Court, filed by the workmen is allowed by allowing I.A. 1/2026. The petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title and furnish the amended cause title.

¶8As far as merits of the case is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner/establishment has assailed the order dated 12.12.2025 wherein the Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the first party for summoning the attendance register maintained by the second party No.1 pertaining to 104 drivers for the years 2007 to 2012.

¶9Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that application could not have been allowed given the fact that the petitioner/establishment has taken a firm stand that the documents are not maintained by them and it is his further submission that one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen has categorically made a statement that all of them are working in a Genius Consultant party No.2 of second party since 2008 and that being the position, the records would be maintained only by party No.2 of the second party and the application for summoning the documents from the party No.1 of the first party is not maintainable.

¶10Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 to 30 would urge that in the cross-examination it is admitted that the documents are with the party No.1 of the second party, as such, the Labour Court is justified in allowing the application.

¶11The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶12From the impugned order, it is noticed that the Labour Court has extracted the evidence of MW-3 and MW-4 to hold that the documents are to be summoned from the Party No.1 of second party. Those portion of the evidence extracted are as under:- MW3:-xxxx

"It is true to suggest that since we were recording the trip details of vehicles of second party No.1, we used to provide all logistics support to the said vehicles and drivers of the said vehicles before and after 2007"

MW4:- xxxx

"It is true to suggest that second party No.2 never used to give trip sheets, trip details and check sheets to drivers."

¶13The aforementioned statement referred to above, do not indicate that the party No.1 of the second party is the custodian of the attendance register of the workmen.

¶14Learned counsel for the respondents would also refer to paragraph No.29 in the cross examination of MW-3. The said paragraph No.29 reads as under:-

"29. It is false to suggest that the company has no system of attendance of each and every driver. I say that currently we have, but I do not know about previous days. We have both biometric and manual attendance. It is false to suggest that we have not maintained any manual attendance register. I can produce the said manual attendance register before this court. I do not know whether in the year 2024 the company had paid Rs.1.2 lakhs as penalty under provisions of Factories Act."

¶15Referring to the above statement it is urged by the learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 30 that the MW-3 has admitted that they maintain the attendance register of the workers.

¶16Responding to this, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the said statement cannot be construed as an admission relating to the records and attendance register of the workmen of the party No.2 of the second party. It is the contention that there may be the attendance register of the employees 0of the party No.1 of the second party.

¶17The Court has perused the said statement. From the said statement, one cannot authoritatively conclude as to whether the attendance registers of the workmen who have raised the dispute are with the party No.1 of the second party. It is quite possible to urge a contention that the registers are pertaining to the regular employees of the petitioner-establishment. It is also possible to urge the contention that the said registers are pertaining to the workmen who have raised a dispute. In any case, there is ambiguity in the said statement.

¶18This being the position, the Court is of the view that at this juncture, it is not possible to record a finding that the records are with the party No.1 of the second party. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside as it purports to take a view that the records are with the petitioner.

¶19Whether records are with the petitioner or not may have to be considered with reference to any other evidence that may be led.

¶20Under these circumstances, keeping that question

to be decided later, the impugned order is set aside.

¶21As far as the prayer to quash Annexure-D, the notification dated 08.12.2025 is concerned, the Court has negatived the similar contention raised in W.P. No.3784/2026 pursuant to amendment brought to the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Hence, the prayer to assail the notification dated

08.12.2025 marked at Annexure-D is not maintainable.

¶22The parties are at liberty to lead further evidence on the availability or non availability of the documents sought to be summoned. Hence, the following:- ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure-G) is set aside.

(iii) The parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence on the availability or non availability of the documents sought to be summoned.

(iv) The time frame fixed by this Court vide earlier

order, to conclude the matter is expiring on

19.03.2026. Considering the controversy involved in this matter, the time frame to dispose of the case is extended by two months from today, excluding the vacation.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16