Dinakooli Nowkarara Sangha vs The Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 5669 Kant

                                          W.P.No.6237/2022

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

        WRIT PETITION No.6237/2022(L-RES)

BETWEEN:

DINAKOOLI NOWKARARA SANGHA
REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ANCIENT
MONUMENTS DIRECTORATE
KAMALAPUR, HAMPI
HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 101                   ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.B.NARAYANA SWAMY ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE SECRETARY
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA CULTURE
       AND INFORMATION, NO.1 GROUND FLOOR
       VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

2.     THE DIRECTOR
       DEPT. OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUM
       PALACE COMPLEX, MYSURU-570 001

3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GULBARGA DIVISION)
       DIRECTORATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUM
       KAMALAPUR, HAMPI, HOSPET TALUK
       BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 101

4.     THE COMMISSIONER
       DEPT. OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUM
       PALACE COMPLEX, MYSURU - 570 001
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA.)
                                               W.P.No.6237/2022

                                2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION    DATED    10.02.2021   PRODUCED   AT
ANNEXURE-L AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
COVER THEM UNDER THE KARNATAKA DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE
WELFARE ACT 2012 AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS THAT HAVE ACCRUED TO THEM UNDER THE SAID
ACT FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT 15.02.2013.

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

                         ORDER

Since the respondents against whom the relief is

sought reside within the jurisdiction of this bench, the

counsel's submission is accepted. Office objections are

overruled.

2. Heard both side.

3. The petitioner is the Union of daily wage

workers employed by respondent No. 2 in the archaeology

project of Hampi as daily wage workmen. They claim to

have joined the services during the year 1981.

4. The petitioner raised dispute in ID

No.503/1991 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli on the

ground that the respondents refused employment to them W.P.No.6237/2022

from December 1988. The Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, on

31.08.1991 allowed the claim petition of the petitioners

and directed the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner/workmen. That order was challenged before this

Court in W.P.No.30914/2000 (L-RES). This Court vide

order Annexure-B dated 28.02.2006 dismissed the said

writ petition.

5. The respondents took the matter up to the

Supreme Court in Special leave petitions. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated Annexure-D dated

14.02.2011 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

Thereafter the members of the petitioner-Union were

reinstated in May 2012.

6. On 14.02.2013 The Karnataka Daily wage

employees Welfare Act, 2012 ('the Act 2012' for short)

came into force providing certain benefits for the daily

wage workers. The petitioner submitted representation

Annexure-L dated 10.02.2021 to extend the benefit under

the Act, 2012.

W.P.No.6237/2022

7. Similar representation given by the daily wage

workers of Sericulture department, Government of

Karnataka was rejected by the Government. They

challenged that order before this Court in Writ Petition

No.17306/2021(L-RES). This Court vide order Annexure-N

dated 09.11.2021 allowed the said Writ Petition, quashed

the endorsement rejecting the representation of the

employees of the said department and directed the

respondents therein to consider their case in accordance

with Act, 2012.

8. The grievance of the petitioners is that

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have not considered their

representation since 10.02.2021 without their being any

reason. Thus they seek writ of mandamus against them.

Apparently since more than one year, respondents No.1, 2

and 4 have not considered the representation Annexure-L.

There is no legal justification for the same. Thereby they

have failed to discharge their statutory function. Therefore

petition is allowed.

W.P.No.6237/2022

Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are hereby directed to

consider Annexure-L the representation of the petitioner in

accordance with law and in the light of Annexure-N the

judgment of this Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE Akc/pkn