Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 218 (KAR)

Venkatesha v. State of Karnataka

2022-02-15

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - 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. 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. 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 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. 52137-151/2017 and in W.P. Nos. 5421-43/2018 and 10296-10300/2018. The impugned endorsements are not speaking orders. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements are issued without application of mind and contrary to the 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 are not speaking orders. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 18.03.2019 issued by respondent No. 6 vide Annexure-K, K1 to K19 and the impugned endorsement dated 26.03.2019 issued by respondent No. 8 vide Annexure-K20 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.