[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shivamogga City Corporation vs Labour Inspector on 27 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
WA No. 1467 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1457 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1467 OF 2024 (L-MW)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2024 (L-MW)
IN WA No. 1467/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION,
Digitally SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
signed by
NANDINI M S ...APPELLANTS
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE (P/H))
AND:
1. LABOUR INSPECTOR, 1ST CIRCLE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
WA No. 1467 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1457 of 2024
HC-KAR
HASSAN REGION,
HASSAN-573 201.
3. M/S. FINE SERVICES HOSPITALITY (PVT.) LTD.
NO.528, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE,
5TH STAGE, B.E.M.L. LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (P/H);
SRI. S. VENKATESH AITHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEALS, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2024 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.1153/2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
IN WA NO. 1457/2024
BETWEEN:
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE (P/H))
AND:
1. LABOUR INSPECTOR, 1ST CIRCLE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE,
SHIVAMOGGA -577 201.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
WA No. 1467 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1457 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
HASSAN REGION,
HASSAN-573 201.
3. RAVINDRA K.M.
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT)
AGE: MAJOR,
TOTAL SOLUTIONS, NO.131
CHANNASANDRA COLONY,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 061.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (P/H))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2024
PASSED IN WP NO.894/2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
WA No. 1467 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1457 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed
impugning the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition
No.894/2024 connected with writ petition
No.1153/2024.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioners were employed in M/s Fine Services
Hospitality (Pvt) Limited - respondent No.3 through a
contract of service entered between the parties on
12.06.2015 for providing housekeeping services at
private Bus stand of Shivamogga. The services were
for Rs.1,07,001/- per month for a period of 5 years,
which was extendable based on the performance of
respondent No.3. The total contract price for period
of 5 years was Rs.64,20,060/-.
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
4. Under the terms of the contract, the service provided
by respondent No.3 was to pay the personnel
employed by him for providing housekeeping services
at the rates, which would be notified by the employer
from time to time, i.e., the petitioners herein. The
personnel employed by respondent No.3 for
providing the housekeeping services, were to be paid
directly by respondent No.3 after deducting the
statutory contribution of PF and ESI. Thus, under the
contract of service entered between the petitioners
and respondent No.3, it was the duty of the
respondent No.3 to pay the wages as notified by the
petitioners.
5. The Labour Inspector had inspected the premises of
the private bus stand on 22.11.2019 and 25.12.2021
and interacted with the persons working there
providing housekeeping services. These persons told
the Inspector that they were not being paid the
minimum wages by respondent No.3 and wages
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
being paid to them were less than the minimum
wages. The Deputy Labour Commissioner registered
the cases. The petitioners were issued notice of
enquiry on the allegations for non- payment of
minimum wages by respondent No.3 to the personnel
employed by him for providing the housekeeping
services as per the contract of service. It appears,
the petitioners did not participate in the enquiry
being conducted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner
and by orders dated 22.11.2022 and 07.07.2022, the
Deputy Labour Commissioner held the petitioners as
well as respondent No.3 responsible for not paying
the minimum wages as per the amended provisions
of Minimum Wages Act, 1923, and directed them for
payment of amount of Rs.1,26,128/- and
Rs.3,50,220/- respectively in respect of the two
cases registered by the labour inspector within a
period of 30 days from the date of the order.
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
6. The two said orders passed by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner are the subject matters of challenge in
two writ petitions mentioned above.
7. The learned Single Judge after analyzing the
provisions of Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, held that the
petitioners would be liable to pay the amount that
was determined by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
However, they would be entitled to recover the
amount from respondent No.3.
8. Mr.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the
petitioners/Corporation submits that the petitioners
are not the principal employers and therefore,
provisions of Section 21(4) of the Act would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. He has
further submitted that it was the sole responsibility of
respondent No.3 to make payment to the workers or
the personnel employed by him for providing the
housekeeping services in pursuance to the contract
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
of service referred to above and for its failure to
make payment as per the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act, the liability on the petitioners -
Corporation cannot be fastened.
9. We have considered the submissions. The facts are
not in dispute that the housekeeping services were
provided by respondent No.3 under the contract of
service and therefore, under the contract of service,
it is the petitioners who are the principal employers
of respondent No.3 for providing services. In case,
the service provider or the supplier of the labour fails
to make payment as per the statutory prescription, it
becomes the liability and responsibility of the
employer who take the services on contract to make
payment as per the statutory prescription and
recover it from the contract. The safeguard as
provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the
Act is to ensure that the labourer or the contract
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
labourer are paid minimum wages and they are not
exploited by the contractor.
10. In the present case, the petitioners did not
participate in the enquiry before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, despite notice and therefore, the
Deputy Labour Commissioner after holding the
enquiry in their absence has assessed the liability at
Rs.1,26,128/- and Rs.3,50,220/- in two cases and
has directed the petitioners and respondent No.3 to
make the aforesaid payments.
11. We have considered the submissions and we do not
find any merit in this appeal. Under sub-Section (4)
of Section 21 of the Act, it is the responsibility of the
petitioners to see that the personnel employed by the
contractor are paid the minimum wages, and if the
contractor fails to make the payment of minimum
wages to the labourers and the workers or the
personnel employed for providing the services under
the service contract, the petitioners have to make
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4266-DB
HC-KAR
good the short fall in payment and may recover the
said amount from the contractor. The said liberty has
already been granted by the learned Single Judge
and therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge. We therefore, dismiss these
writ appeals.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
HB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
