Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1153 (KAR)

V. R. Bhojegowda v. State of Karnataka

2017-08-18

B.VEERAPPA

body2017
ORDER : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The petitioner, who claims to be working as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services and to extend all other consequential monetary benefits and to direct the respondents to pay the additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- from 01.04.2009 in terms of the Government Orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012, Annexures - B and C, and also to direct the respondents to extend the benefit accrued to the petitioner under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Rules, 2012. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis on 15.06.1984 and the services came to be terminated on 20.08.1988. Therefore, petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 52/1995. The Tribunal, after holding a detailed enquiry, by an award dated 14.12.2000, set-aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner into original post without back-wages and consequential service benefits. The said order was challenged by the State Government before this Court in W.P. No. 36944/2001. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 11.04.2005, dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. During pendency of the writ petition, on 01.10.2005 respondents paid wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and reinstated the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the State Government passed orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 regarding additional payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the daily wage employees from 01.04.2009. In pursuance of the said Order, on 11.01.2013, the petitioner made a representation to implement the said Government Orders in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of the said representation, the respondents have not considered the representation and have not passed any orders till today. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis prior to 01.07.1984. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis prior to 01.07.1984. Therefore, he was entitled for regularization in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others AIR 1990 SC 883 : (1990) 2 SCC 396 . He further contended that the State Government proceeded to pass orders as per Annexures-B and C granting additional payment of Rs. 1,000/- to daily wage employees from 01.04.2009. Petitioner is also entitled to the said benefit and therefore made representation. Inspite of the same, the authorities have not considered the representation. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for a writ of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioner and extend the benefits in terms of the Government Orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012, Annexures B and C. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Gopala C. learned counsel for Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 contended that the petitioner was only a daily wage employee and he has to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 and unless and until the service of the petitioner is regularized, he cannot be granted additional benefits as contemplated, in terms of Annexures-B and C. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Smt. Shilpa Gogi, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner admittedly was appointed on 15.06.1984 on daily wage basis. Subsequently, petitioner's service came to be terminated and in view of the order of the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.10.2005. Still he is working as Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis. His services are not yet regularized and he has to fulfil the conditions stipulated for regularization. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 7. Still he is working as Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis. His services are not yet regularized and he has to fulfil the conditions stipulated for regularization. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Graduate Assistant by the respondents 2 and 4, on 15.06.1984. Though he was terminated on 25.06.1988, in view of the dispute raised by the petitioner in I.D. No. 52/1995, the Labour Court by the award dated 14.12.2000 set-aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the petitioner without back-wages. Against the said award, the State Government filed W.P. No. 36944/2001 which came to be dismissed and ultimately, petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.10.2005. It is so not in dispute that the State Government as per Annexures B and C sanctioned additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the persons who worked for more than ten years. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the said order passed by the State Government, petitioner made a representation to the fourth respondent on 11.01.2013 to regularize the services and to pay monthly additional payment of Rs. 1,000/- in terms of the order passed by the State Government as per Annexures-B and C, supra. The fourth respondent, ought to have considered the said representation within a reasonable period of time. Same has not been done. Therefore, petitioner is driven before this Court for a writ of mandamus. 8. It is well settled principle of law that whenever aggrieved party files any representation to the concerned authority, it is for the authority to consider the said representation and pass orders within a reasonable time. Admittedly, the fourth respondent has not considered the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2013 till today. Whether the services of the petitioner has to be regularized, whether petitioner is entitled to additional payment of Rs. 1,000/- in terms of the Government Orders has to be considered by the respondents with reference to the service records maintained by them, which is not done till today by the respondents. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. 1,000/- in terms of the Government Orders has to be considered by the respondents with reference to the service records maintained by them, which is not done till today by the respondents. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.