Allowed

Rangaiah R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021WA/169/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court applied a decision from connected writ appeals (W.A.No.961/2019) to dispose of two pending writ appeals filed by Monsoon Gangmen against KPTCL/BESCOM. The court held that the issue of salary parity must be determined by the State Labour Commissioner after enquiry, as per the connected case directions. Appeals were allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Single Judge directing KPTCL to pay salary was set aside; appellants directed to approach the Labour Commissioner for determination of salary parity entitlements.

Rangaiah R Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.169/2020 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.1871/2019 (S-RES)

¶9

W.A. No.169/2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RANGAIAH .R S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶12

GURUMURTHY .T S/O. THANAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶13

SOMASHEKAR .B.N S/O. BASAVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶14

GURUMURTHY S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.470/A, ARKESHWARA COLONY, 5^TH CROSS, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶15

SANTOSH .N.G S/O. GURUSWAMY,

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA - 562 122.

¶18

ANIL .C.D S/O. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KEB QTRS., BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶19

SOMASHEKAR .N S/O. NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KOTE KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶20

SIDDARAJU S/O. SHIVA LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KOTE KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶21

YUVARAJU .G.P S/O. PUTTASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, INDRANAGARA, BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶22

GOWTHAM .K.S S/O. SENNASETTY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶23

NANDISH KUMAR .M S/O. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT ANJANAPURA, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶24

NAGENDRA .M S/O. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT INDRANAGARA, BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST,

¶25

¶26

	RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
13.	HEMANTH KUMAR .G.P S/O. PUTTA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT INDRANAGARA, BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
14.	CHOWDESHA .N S/O. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT ITAMADHU, ITTAMADHU POST, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
15.	UMESH .H S/O. HOBBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, KEB QUARTERS, M.G.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 122.
16.	KARTHIK .G S/O. GANESHA .B AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CHURCH ROAD, AVLTHPURA, CHANNAPATNA - 562 122.
17.	MAHESH .N S/O. NAGARAJA .B.C AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.679, B.M. ROAD, NEAR POLICE STATION, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 109.
18.	VIJAY .R S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, KURUPETE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
19.	MANJUNATH .S S/O. N. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NEELAKANTNAHALLI, HONGANOR POST, CHANNAPATNA - 562 122. ... APPELLANTS
(BY	SRI N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. REP. BY HIS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶30

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶31

SANTHOSH KUMAR B.K. S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED 30 YEAR, R/AT 106, HAROHALLI KOTE WATER TANK ROAD, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 117. 5. KARTHIK .N S/O. NAGESH, AGED 25 YEARS, V.V. NAGARA, KEB QUARTERS, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435. ... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1; MS. HARSHITA RATHOD FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR R-2 & R-3; R-4 AND R-5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2018, PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.51437-51457/2017 (S-RES), AND GRANT THE PRAYERS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶34

¶35

W.A. No.1871/2019

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM) HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT: BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... APPELLANT

¶38

... APPELLANT

¶39

(BY MS. HARSHITA RATHOD FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATES)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SRI. RANGAIAH .R S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶42

SRI. GURUMURTHY S/O. THANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶43

SRI. SOMASHEKAR B.N. S/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

¶44

SRI. GURUMURTHY S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.470/A, ARAKESHWARA COLONY, 5^TH CROSS, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶45

SRI. SANTOSH N.G. S/O. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA - 562 122.

¶46

¶47

ANIL C.D. S/O. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KEB QTRS. BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶48

SOMA SHEKAR .N S/O. NINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KOTE KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶49

SIDDA RAJU S/O. SHIVA LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KOTE KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶50

YUVARAJU G.P. S/O. PUTTASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, INDRANAGARA BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶51

GOWTHAM K.S. S/O. SENNASETTY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 29.

¶52

NANDISH KUMAR .M S/O. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT ANJANAPURA KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶53

NAGENDRA .M S/O. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT INDRANAGARA BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶54

HEMANTH KUMAR G.P. S/O. PUTTA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT INDRANAGARA

¶55

¶56

	BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
14.	SANTOSH KUMAR B.K.
	S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.106,
	HAROHALLI KOTE WATER TANK ROAD,
	HAROHALLI HOBLI,
	KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
15.	CHOWDESHA .N
	S/O. NAGESH,
	AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT ITAMADHU, ITTAMADHU POST, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
16.	UMESH .H
	S/O. HOBBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KEB QUARTERS, M.G. ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
	RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 122.
17.	KARTHIK .G
	S/O. GANESHA .B, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, CHURCH ROAD, AVLTHPURA, CHANNAPATNA - 562 122.
18.	MAHESH .N
	S/O. NAGARAJA B.C., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
	NO.679, B.M. ROAD,
	NEAR POLICE STATION, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109.
19.	VIJAY .R
	S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KURUPETTE KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
20.	MANJUNATH .S
	S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NEELAKANTANAHALLI,
	HONGANOR POST
	, CHANNAPATNA - 562 122.

¶57

¶58

KARTHIK .N S/O. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, V.V. NAGAR, KEB QUARTERS, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.

¶59

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶60

STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.236, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-21; (VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 ACCEPTS NOTICE); SMT. VANI H., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-23; R-22 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶62

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5143751457/2017.

¶63

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶64

¶65

J U D G M E N T

¶66

Though these writ appeals are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

¶67

W.A.No.169/2020 has been filed by the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 05/10/2018, passed in W.P.Nos.51437-51457/2017, while W.A.No.1871/2019 has been filed by Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company ("BESCOM") assailing the very same order of the learned single Judge.

¶68

Learned counsel for the respective parties as well as learned Additional Government appearing for the respondent/State submitted that these appeals could be disposed of in terms of the Judgment passed by this Court on 06/11/2020 in W.A.No.961/2019 connected with W.A.Nos.977/2019 and W.A.No.978/2019. They submitted in unison that this Court in the aforesaid appeals reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the State Labour Commissioner with regard to their entitlements regarding their salary and allowances, and a direction was issued to the Labour Commissioner, Government of Karnataka or his delegate to issue notices and after considering the

¶69

10 -

¶70

pleadings and giving a reasonable opportunity to determine about the entitlements of the petitioners.

¶71

Learned counsel for the respective parties furnished a copy of the judgment dated 06/11/2020 and drew our attention to the relevant portion of the judgment, which are extracted as under:

¶72

" 10. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and we have perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the documents appended to the memorandum of writ petitions. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are not recruited or appointed by the appellants directly and they have been rendering services as Monsoon Gangmen in KPTCL and the other appellant entity. They are doing so, through a service provider or placement agency with whom KPTCL has entered into an agreement or contract. There is also no direct payment of salary or any other allowances being paid by KPTCL to the petitioners. The petitioners have render their service in KPTCL but are ultimately paid by the service provider. However, the contention of the petitioners is that the performance of their duties in KPTCL is on par with the duties being performed by the regularly appointed Junior Linemen and who are receiving higher pay scale and allowances but the same has been denied to these petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that learned Single Judge was justified in directing KPTCL to pay salary and allowances to the

¶73

11 -

¶74

petitioners on par with the Junior Linemen who are recruited and are on the rolls of KPTCL. However, we find that before directing KPTCL to pay the salary, learned Single Judge has lost sight of the fact that they are not employees directly recruited by KPTCL but they have been providing service through a service provider with whom KPTCL or the other appellant-BESCOM has entered into agreement/contract.

¶75

Be that as it may, the question still remains as to whether the petitioners are entitled to salary and allowances on par with the regularly employed Junior Linemen. In other words, the question is, as to, whether, they are rendering similar or identical services, although, they may not have been employed directly by KPTCL. Admittedly, there is no such determination being the basis for the direction issued in the impugned orders by learned Single Judge.

¶76

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the State Labour Commissioner is directed, either himself or through his delegate, to make a determination about the entitlement of the petitioners regarding their salary and allowances and as to, whether, in that regard, the determination must be regarding the regularly employed Junior Linemen, as to, whether, the petitioners are performing their duties on par with the Junior Linemen in the appellants’ Company and by taking into consideration all other facts and circumstances including the contract that have been entered into by KPTCL with the Contractors and

¶77

12 -

¶78

having regard to the applicable facts. For this purpose, the writ petitioners may make a claim by way of representation or petition to the Labour Commissioner, Government of Karnataka.

¶79

On such representation, or petition being made, the Labour Commissioner or his delegate shall issue notice to the appellants herein and after pleadings are complete and hear the parties and giving them a reasonable opportunity being heard determine the issue regarding parity of pay scales between the petitioners and the Junior Linemen employed by KPTCL and Bengalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) who is the second appellant herein in accordance with law.

¶80

The order shall be communicated to the appellants herein as well as the advocates or representatives of the writ petitioners who would be representing before the Labour Commissioner or his delegate during the course of enquiry.

¶81

On such claim being made by the petitioners and on receipt of the response from KPTCL and the second appellant, the Labour Commissioner or his delegate shall pass an order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the response from KPTCL and the second appellant. It is needless to observe that both the parties shall co-operate with the Labour Commissioner or his delegate to conclude the enquiry expeditiously.

¶82

In the circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in

¶83

13 -

¶84

W.P.Nos.28980-29039/2017 and the connected writ petitions is set aside. The issue regarding parity in pay scales would be subject to further proceedings referred to above.

¶85

In view of the aforesaid order, WA.No.977/2019 & WA.No.978/2019 are accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners in those writ petitions to make a claim in the aforesaid manner and if such a claim is made the observation and direction referred to the above would apply mutatis and mutandis.

¶86

In the result, WA.No.961/2019 is allowed. WA.No.977/2019 & WA.No.978/2019 are accordingly disposed.

¶87

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶88

In view of disposal of the appeals, all pending applications stand disposed."

¶89

In view of the aforesaid directions being issued

¶90

in the judgment dated 06/11/2020, the same shall apply to these writ petitioners/appellants herein. The directions issued to the Labour Commissioner, Government of Karnataka as aforesaid shall apply in respect of the writ petitioners/appellants herein.

¶91

In the result, W.A.No.1871/2019 is allowed and W.A.No.169/2020 is disposed.

¶92

14 -

¶93

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶94

In view of disposal of the appeals, other pending

¶95

applications stand disposed.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

Rangaiah R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaiah R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nithin R Dhage Vs Smt. Roopa N. Dhage

Cubbon Park Walkers Association Vs Mr. P Ravi Kumar IAS

The Director General Vs Sijesh George

Sri a M Gangappa Since Deceased Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Budunuru Ramachandra Vs the Chief Secretary

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) Vs Sri. Rangaiah. R