Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkatesha @ Venkateshappa vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

        WRIT PETITION No.16594/2021(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    SRI VENKATESHA @ VENKATESHAPPA
      S/O PILLAMUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
      CHAPURA VILLAGE
      CHINTAMANI
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

2.    SRI M K BYRA REDDY
      S/O G KRISHNAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
      KANAMPALLI, CHINTAMANI
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

3.    SRI RAVI M
      S/O MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
      KURATAHALLI
      CHINTAMANI
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

4.    SRI J RAJESH
      S/O JAYARAMAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
      BAMBU BAZAR
      CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
                         2



5.   SRI ANIL KUMAR T
     S/O THIPPASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     VENKATAGIRIKOTE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

6.   SRI NATARAJA S
     S/O SHRINIVAS
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     KASTHURI BAI ROAD
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

7.   SRI SUBRAMANI M
     S/O MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     KANAMPALLI VILLAGE
     CHINTAMANI TALUK
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

8.   SRI VENKATRAMANA D
     S/O DASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     DODAHALLI, CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

9.   SRI VENKATAREDDY
     S/O DODANARAYANAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     KANAMPALLI
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

10 . SRI RAJAREDDY D K
     S/O UCHAPPAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     DODDAHALLI VILLAGE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
                            3




11 . SRI ANIL R
     S/O RAMAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     KASTHURI BAI ROAD
     AGRAHARA
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

12 . SRI MURALI M
     S/O LATE DEVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     KASTHURIBAI ROAD
     AGRAHARA, CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563126.

13 . SRI MUNIKRISHNA P
     S/O PILLACHINNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     VENKATAGIRIKOTE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

14 . SRI LOKESH N
     S/O NAGARAJAPPA T
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
     NAYAKANAHALLI
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

15 . SRI NANDISH N
     S/O MUNINARASAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     VENKATAGIRIKOTE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

16 . SRI SHANKARAPPA E
     S/O ESHWARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                         4



    1ST DIVISION
    CHINTAMANI
    CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

17 . SRI RAMESH
     S/O BUDDAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

18 . SRI SAIYED MAHABOOB PASHA
     S/O SAIYAD ALLABAKASH
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     MAHABOOB NAGARA
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

19 . SRI MURALI V
     S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA V
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     VENKATAGIRIKOTE
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

20 . SRI BYRA REDDY N
     S/O G NARAYANASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     MALAPALLI, IST CROSS
     CHINTAMANI
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

21 . SRI SATISH S V
     S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     BHOVI COLONY
     SRINIVASPURA TOWN AND TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563135.
                                    ...PETITIONERS
                          5



(BY SRI.A.S. PONNANNA, SERNIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV. (PH))

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
      VIKAS SOUDHA
      BANGALORE-570001.

2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MUNICIPAL
      ADMINISTRATION
      VIKAS SOUDHA
      BANGALORE-570001.

3.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT
      OF LABOUR
      VIKAS SOUDHA
      BANGALORE-570001.

4.    THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
      V V TOWER, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
      AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
      BANGALORE-570001.

5.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
      CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

6.    THE COMMISSIONER
      CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
      CHINTAMANI-563125.

7.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      KOLAR DISTRICT
      KOLAR-563101.
                           6



8.   THE CHIEF OFFICER
     TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
     KOLAR-563135.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 & R7(PH):
    SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADV. FOR R8(PH):
    SRI. RAMESHKUMAR R.V. ADV. FOR R6)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 18.03.2019
ISSUED BY THE R6, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-K, K1 TO K19 AS WELL THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 26.03.2019, ISSUED BY THE R8, COPY OF WHICH
IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K20       AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY EQUAL PAY ON PAR WITH THE
REGULAR EMPLOYEES TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR          ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India challenging the

endorsements dated 18.03.2019 issued by respondent

No.6 vide Annexure-K, K1 to K19 and endorsement

dated 26.03.2019 vide Annexure-K20 wherein the

request of the petitioners to abolish the contract

labour system and equal pay for equal work has been

rejected.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they

were working as contract labourers in respondent

Nos.6 and 8, Municipal Counsel in the Department of

Water Supply and Maintenance as water supply

helpers for more than ten years. Since the salary paid

to the petitioners was less than the salary paid to the

regular employees of respondent Nos.6 and 8, they

filed representations dated 02.04.2018 to the

respondents seeking for abolition of contract labour

system as per the provisions of the Contract Labour

(Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the

Act) and pay equal wages to the petitioners on par

with the regular employees. Since their

representations were not considered, they approached

this Court in W.P.Nos.52137-151/2017 dated

28.02.2018 and in W.P.Nos.5421-43/2018 and 10296-

10300/2018 dated 07.03.2018. This Court has

disposed of the said writ petitions and directed the

competent authorities to consider the representations

of the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant to

that, the respondent No.6 has issued the impugned

endorsements vide Annexure-K, K1 to K19 and

respondent No.8 has issued impugned endorsement

vide Annexure-K20. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners are before this Court.

3. Mr.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel

for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners

have given representations dated 02.04.2018 seeking

for abolition of contract labour system since the same

is prohibited under Section 10(1) of the Act and

requested them to pay equal wages to the petitioners

on par with the regular employees of respondent

Nos.6 and 8. Inspite of the directions issued by this

Court to consider the representations of the

petitioners in accordance with law, the impugned

endorsements have been passed rejecting the claim of

the petitioners. The same is issued contrary to the

directions of this Court. The impugned endorsements

are issued without application of mind. The request of

the petitioners for abolition of contract labour system

was not considered by the respondents. The impugned

endorsements are not speaking orders. Hence, he

sought for allowing the writ petition by quashing the

impugned endorsements.

     4.    Mr.Ramesh          Kumar      R.V.      and

Mr.M.A.Subramani,    learned counsel for respondent

Nos.6 and 8, respectively, have contended that

pursuant to the representations submitted by the

petitioners, their case has been considered. Since the

petitioners are working under contractor, they are not

entitled for equal pay for equal work on par with the

regular employees working in the respondent Nos.6

and 8. Therefore, the authority has rightly rejected

the representations of the petitioners.

5. The learned AGA appearing for the State

has supported the impugned endorsements issued by

respondent Nos.6 and 8.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the writ papers.

7. The petitioners have given representations

requesting the respondents to abolish contract labour

system since the same is prohibited under Section

10(1) of the Act and requested them to pay equal

wages to the petitioners on par with the regular

employees of respondent Nos.6 and 8. Since their

representations have not been considered, they

approached this Court in W.P.Nos.52137-151/2017

dated 28.02.2018 and in W.P.Nos.5421-43/2018 and

10296-10300/2018 dated 07.03.2018.

This Court by order dated 28.02.2018 has issued

the following direction:

6. The mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that person shall not be discriminated if they are working in similar cadre and also Article 19 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India mandates equal payment for equal work. In the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India and also in the light of judgments of this Court referred to above, it is appropriate to direct the sixth respondent-Municipality to consider the representation at Annexure-J.

7. In addition to the above, the petitioners are at liberty to make a detailed representation/s to all the respondents. If such representations are made, the competent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass orders within a period of three months thereafter.

And by order dated 07.03.2018 has issued the

following direction:

"6. The mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that the a person shall

not be discriminated if they are working in similar cadre and also Article 19 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India mandates equal payment for equal work. In the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India and also in the light of orders of this Court referred to above, it is appropriate to direct the sixth respondent- City Municipal Council to consider the representation at Annexure-H.

7. This Court in the earlier writ petitions i.e., W.P. No. 6058/2006 and W.P. No.18110/2012 disposed of the matters with similar direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for regularization, equal pay for equal work etc., and in order to pass detailed order petitioners were permitted to make detailed representation and time for compliance was six months.

       8.     In     view     of       the      above,     the
Petitioners    are    permitted          to     make      fresh

representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Respondents are directed to consider the same within six months from the date of receipt and

pass appropriate order in accordance with law."

8. Inspite of specific directions issued by this

Court in W.P.Nos.52137-151/2017 and in

W.P.Nos.5421-43/2018 and 10296-10300/2018, the

impugned endorsements have been issued wherein

the request of the petitioners has not been

considered. The specific prayer made by the

petitioners is regarding abolition of the contract labour

system since the same is prohibited under Section

10(1) of the Act and requesting for equal wages with

par of the regular employees of respondent Nos.6 and

8. In the impugned endorsements, there is no