Karnataka High Court
Sri E Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.16817/2021(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI E MANJUNATH
S/O ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
PANCHAKALAIAIANA STREET
TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228.
2. SRI T P AJEYA
S/O LATE PARAMESHWARPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NAYAKARA STREET
TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
3. SRI T P NAGENDRA
S/O LATE PARMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
KOTECAMPE, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
4. SMT ASHWINI H B
W/O VISRUPAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
HALIYURU, TARIKERE
2
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
5. SRI SURESH K
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RAMADEVAR BEEDHI, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
6. SRI HARISHA S T
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
MAIN ROAD, SEETHAPURA
KAVALU DUGLAPURA, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577144.
7. SRI T MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BAPOOJI COLONY, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
8. SRI T S LOHITH KUMAR
S/O SHASHI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
AKKANAGAMMA COLONY, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
9. SRI RAVI R
S/O RANGANATHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SEETHAPURAKAVALU, TARIKERE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577144.
10 . SRI GURU8MUTHY T
S/O THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3
R/AT GOWDAHANUMAYYA STREET
TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
11 . SRI KRISHNA MURTHY K
S/O LATE KANIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT GATEDUGLAPURA, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577144.
12 . SRI AJAYA T A
S/O LATE EKANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
GALIHALLI TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
13 . SRI GIRISH KUMAR L
S/O LATE LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
DORNALU, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228.
14 . SRI ANJANEYA
S/O LATE LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
BAPOOJI COLONY, TARIKER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228.
15 . SRI SOMSHEKARAPPA B R
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
UPARABASAVANAHALLI, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
16 . SRI KRISHNAPPA P
S/O LATE PAPANNA
4
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BHAPOOJI COLONY, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
17 . SRI BHARATH KUMAR M
S/O LATE M MANIKYAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
6TH CROSS, KODI CAMPE,TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
18 . SRI CHANNAKESHAVA N
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
AMBEDKARNAGARA
KOTE CAMPE, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
19 . SRI RAJAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT KODI CAMPE, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
20 . SMT VEENA A
W/O LATE PRASHANTH T M
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NEAR KEB, 1ST CROSS
CHOWDESHWARY COLONY, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADV.(PH))
5
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECSRETARY
DEPARTMENTS 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
SECSRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE 570001.
4. THE DIRECSTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
V V TOWER, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
AMBEDKAR VEDHI
BANGALORE 570001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-571401.
6. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY
6
TARIKERE-577228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAGASHREE, AGA. R1 TO R5(PH):
SMT. SHRUTI, ADV, FOR
SRI. RAVI H.R., ADV. FOR R6(VC))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
23.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R5, A COPY OF WHICH IS
HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE
R6, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP 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
endorsement dated 23.03.2019 issued by respondent
No.5 vide Annexure-H and endorsement dated
22.03.2019 issued by respondent No.6 vide
Annexure-J 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 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 No.6, they filed
representations 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.53579-53593/2017. This Court by order
dated 5.4.2018 disposed of the writ petitions and
directed the competent authorities to consider the
representations of the petitioners in accordance with
law. Pursuant to that, the impugned endorsements
have been issued vide Annexure-H and J. 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 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 No.6. Inspite of
the directions issued by this Court to consider
the representations of the petitioners in accordance
with law, the impugned endorsement has been
passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The
same is issued contrary to the directions of this
Court. The impugned endorsement is issued without
application of mind. The request of the petitioners for
abolition of contract labour system was not considered
by the respondent. The impugned endorsement is not
a speaking order. Hence, he sought for allowing the
writ petition by quashing the impugned endorsement.
4. Mr.Ravi.H.K., learned counsel for
respondent No.6 has 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 No.6. 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.5 and 6.
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 No.6. Since their
representations have not been considered, they
approached this Court in W.P.Nos.53579-53593/2017.
This court by order dated 5.4.2018 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. This Court in the earlier writ
petitions i.e., W.P.No.6058/2016 and
W.P.No.18110/2012 disposed of the
matters with similar direction to the
Government to consider the
representation of the petitioners for the
purpose of regularization and to pay equal
pay for equal work etc.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are
disposed of in terms of direction issued in
the earlier writ petitions to consider the
representation and pass appropriate orders
within 6 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order."
8. Inspite of specific directions issued by this
Court in W.P.Nos.53579-53593/2017, 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 No.6. In the impugned
endorsements, there is no whisper in respect of
abolition of the contract labour system. The impugned
endorsements are issued without application of
mind and contrary to the directions issued by this
Court in W.P.Nos.53579-53593/2017. The impugned
endorsements are not a speaking order. Hence, the
same are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2019 issued
by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-H and
endorsement dated 22.03.2019 issued by respondent
No.6 vide Annexure-J are quashed. The respondents
are directed to reconsider the representations of the
petitioners in accordance with law after giving
opportunity to the petitioners, within six months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
