JUDGMENT : K.S.MUDAGAL, J. 1. The above petition is preferred for quashing the order Annexure-E dtd. 29/8/2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Sec. 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act 1972 ). 2. Respondent No.3 was working in the establishment of the petitioner as a conductor. He retired on 31/3/2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 25/6/2014, he filed an application before respondent No.2 claiming difference in gratuity amount contending that he joined the service in the year 1976 and therefore, he has put in total service of 38 years. 3. Accepting the said contention, respondent No.2 passed order Annexure-C dtd. 17/12/2015 directing the petitioner to pay difference of gratuity amount of Rs.2,16,300.00 with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 25/6/2014 till the date of deposit. 4. The petitioner challenged that order before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order Annexure-D dismissed the appeal rejecting all the contentions of the petitioner. Challenging that order, present petition is filed. 5. Submissions of Smt. Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) Respondent No.3 joined the service of the petitioner on 31/1/1985. The burden was on him to prove that he joined the service with effect from 4/2/1976. The only document produced to prove that contention was the copy of the memo Ex.P.1, which was totally illegible. Respondent No.3 suppressed the original of Ex.P.1 if at all that was in existence. Therefore, the only inference is that Ex.P.1 was a concocted document. (ii) One year prior to his retirement, on 9/5/2013, petitioner issued notice to the respondent with all service particulars. In that his date of entry into service was shown as 31/1/1985. He did not dispute that till his retirement and later he raised the dispute before respondent No.2. His conduct shows that date of entry into service was 31/1/1985. Therefore, calculation of the gratuity amount from 4/2/1976 is unsustainable. 6. Submissions of Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.3: (i) Ex.P.1 was the petitioner 's own document. There was no reason to disbelieve that. Respondent was appointed on 4/2/1976. That was evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18563 to 18568 of 1983. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in BMTC Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and others ILR 2009 KAR 4305 which was confirmed in W.A.No.1503/2009(L-K). 7. There was no reason to disbelieve that. Respondent was appointed on 4/2/1976. That was evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18563 to 18568 of 1983. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in BMTC Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and others ILR 2009 KAR 4305 which was confirmed in W.A.No.1503/2009(L-K). 7. After arguing the matter in part, learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed application to produce the following documents as additional evidence: (i) Copy of memo dtd. 4/2/1976 said to be issued by the petitioner appointing respondent No.3 as badli conductor. (ii) Copy of letter of appointment dtd. 24/7/1980 allegedly issued by the petitioner to respondent No.3. (iii) Copy of letter dtd. 25/1/1982 issued by Labour Welfare and Personnel Officer of the petitioner to the Depot Manager, KSRTC, Tumkur Division to stop the duty of respondent No.3. (iv) Copy of endorsement dtd. 5/5/2001 said to be issued by Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumkur Division to respondent No.3 appointing him with effect from 31/1/1985 as probationary conductor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the production of the said documents and submitted that they are all concocted documents and the originals are not produced. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is ' 'Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are justified in computing the qualifying service of respondent No.3 for the purpose of determination of gratuity with effect from 4/2/1976? ' '. 10. The burden of proving that he was appointed in the petitioner 's establishment with effect from 4/2/1976 was on respondent No.3. The only document produced by him in support of the said contention was Ex.P.1, the copy of the memo dtd. 4/2/1976. The genuineness of the said document was disputed. If the said memo was issued to respondent No.3 original memo should be in his custody. He did not produce the originals. 11. In the service book Ex.R.5, the date of appointment of respondent No.3 was shown as 31/1/1985. Since 1985 till his retirement on 31/3/2013, at no point of time, respondent No.3 disputed those entries. His service particulars were sent to him before his retirement for fixation of pension etc. showing his date of entry into service as 1985. Then also he did not raise any objection. Since 1985 till his retirement on 31/3/2013, at no point of time, respondent No.3 disputed those entries. His service particulars were sent to him before his retirement for fixation of pension etc. showing his date of entry into service as 1985. Then also he did not raise any objection. More than one year thereafter he filed application before respondent No.1 claiming that he joined on 4/2/1976 and not on 31/1/1985. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that in W.P.Nos.18563-568 of 1983 this Court passed the judgment against the petitioner directing it to reinstate respondent No.3 and other similarly situated employees. Conveniently, he did not produce the copy of the said judgment. Therefore this Court secured the said judgment from Registry. 13. The order dtd. 21/7/1986 passed in W.P.Nos.18563-568 of 1983 shows that those cases were connected to W.P.No.6299/1983 and that was a lead case. That further shows that several other similarly situated employees of the petitioner filed W.P.No.6299/1983 and connected matters claiming that they have put in continuous service of 240 days since long back and the petitioner has unjustly terminated their services and sought for their reinstatement etc. The main matter in that order was W.P.No.6299/1983 between Honnayya Vs. KSRTC. The same is reported in ILR 1985 Kar 1390. 14. The reading of the said judgment further shows that respondent No.3 and others claimed that though they were not employed continuously, in view of Sec. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they shall be deemed to be in service as they were badli conductors and worked whenever the work was allotted to them. Rejecting the said contentions, this Court held that whenever the work was not given to the badli conductor, that amounts to 'cessation of employment'. 15. This Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohnlal Vs. Management, Bharath Electronics Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1252 and Lalappa Vs. Lakshmi Vishnu Textile Mills AIR 1981 SC 852 rejected such contentions. This Court further relied on the judgment in Mahadev Textile Mills Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal 1976 (1) K.L.J. 315 to hold that badli cannot be regarded as in the employment of an employer on the days on which he had not worked and dismissed the writ petitions. Respondent No.3 and others filed applications to review that order. This Court by order dtd. 21/7/1986 dismissed the applications. 16. Additional Industrial Tribunal 1976 (1) K.L.J. 315 to hold that badli cannot be regarded as in the employment of an employer on the days on which he had not worked and dismissed the writ petitions. Respondent No.3 and others filed applications to review that order. This Court by order dtd. 21/7/1986 dismissed the applications. 16. Suppressing those judgments, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.1 claiming that he was in employment since 1976. Such conduct of respondent No.3 is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. In the light of the said judgments of this Court there is much force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the documents produced at Annexure-R1 by way of additional evidence are concocted. That speaks about the cause for respondent No.3 not producing the originals of those documents. 17. Further respondent No.3's own document produced at Annexure-R4 as additional evidence shows that he applied to the petitioner to consider him in service of badli conductor with effect from 31/7/1981 whereas, respondent Nos.1 and 2 hold that he was working as badli conductor since 1976. 18. The petitioner is a corporation. The Officers of the petitioner in charge of Administration keep changing. It is possible that they were not in a position to trace the track of the aforesaid writ petitions and the order passed in those writ petitions against respondent No.3. But respondent No.3 himself was a party to the writ petitions. Therefore, he was duty bound to disclose the same before respondent Nos.1 and 2 and before this Court. He did not stop there. On 20/1/2018 he managed to secure orders from respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,16,300.00 the difference amount deposited before respondent No.1. 19. Further the judgment relied on learned counsel for respondent No.3 is not applicable in view of the fact that this Court in the case filed by respondent No.3 himself rejected his contention that he was in continuous service for 240 days prior to 1982. 20. Such conduct of suppression of material fact to achieve his dishonest goal shows that he tried to interfere with the course of justice constantly making false representations before the Court that too about the judgments of this Court. That amounts to contempt of Court. 20. Such conduct of suppression of material fact to achieve his dishonest goal shows that he tried to interfere with the course of justice constantly making false representations before the Court that too about the judgments of this Court. That amounts to contempt of Court. Having regard to the age of respondent No.3 this Court does not intend to proceed against him in that direction, but only with an admonition. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures-C and E passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to proceed against respondent No.3 for recovery of the amount withdrawn by him.