Disposed

Sri Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/25330/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wage cook and a federation challenged outsourcing tenders and orders removing daily wage staff. The court held regularization was not available as the tribunal had rejected it and services continued through an outsourced agency; directed respondents to extend welfare benefits under Section 4 of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend benefits under Section 4 of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 to petitioners and similarly placed persons if entitled, within three months.

Sri Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 25330 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6062 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶9

IN W.P.No.25330/2012:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI GANGADHARAPPA S/O SRI.YERAKADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NASTHIMMANAHALLI, KETHANAHALLI POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. N VAGEESH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE 5^TH FLOOR, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶20

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI.

¶21

DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BEHIND CANARA BANK CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRCT.

¶23

TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVADAS.N., AAG ALONGWITH SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R.1-4 & 6; SRI. H.L.V. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER REFERENCE DATED 26.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

¶26

IN W.P.No.6062/2012:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT DAILY WAGES AND HONORARY, EMPLOYEES FEDERATION (REGISTERED), MYSORE. No.84/1, SUKANYABAI NILAYA, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE-09. REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER SMT. K.GAYATHRI, D/O LATE KALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶29

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶30

…PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. N.SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR GURURAJ.R., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMNET OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶35

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶36

DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CANARA BANK, 1^ST FLOOR, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. DEVADAS.N., AGA ALONGWITH SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R-1, 2 & R-4; R-3 SERVED)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:02.12.2011 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER DATED:04.01.2012 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

¶40

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 has challenged the short term tender notification for outsourcing teaching and nonteaching staff in respect of Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/BCM Department hostels and Morarji Desai/Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School and College for the year 2012-2013 dated 26.06.2012 issued by the fourth respondent.

¶45

The petitioner in W.P.No.6062/2012 has challenged an order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-C) and an order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-D)

¶46

The petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 contends that he was appointed on daily wage as a Cook by the respondents and from then on, he was working at Government Boys Hostel, Peresandra village, Chikkaballpura Taluk. He contends that after he completed 10 years of service, he submitted representations requesting the respondents to treat him as a permanent employee. He contends that the respondent No.4 was assuring that his case would be considered. He also contends that the respondents were deprived him of minimum

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶48

wages and therefore, he initiated proceedings before the Labour Officer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which is pending adjudication. The petitioner contends that his services had to be regularized and his wages had to be refixed. However, the respondents were sitting over the issue and were trying to terminate the services of the petitioner by inviting tender to procure non-teaching staff through an outsourced agency. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said tender notification.

¶49

In W.P.No.6062/2012, the petitioner being a association of Daily Wagers and Honorary Employees initiated Conciliation proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 highlighting the grievances of daily wagers and honorary employees before the District Social Welfare Officer, Chikkaballapur. The petitioner received a notice from Joint Labour Commissioner regarding hearing of the matter and same is still pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2/Commissiner for Social Welfare passed the impugned order dated 02.12.2011 directing respondent No.3 not to continue/engage any employees on daily wages and directed to engage the employees through an

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶51

outsourcing agency. Based on the said direction, the respondent No.4/District Social Welfare Officer, issued a direction to all the Taluk Social Welfare Officers to remove the daily wages Employees dated 04.01.2012. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 reiterated grounds urged in the writ petition and contends that the petitioner was working as a Cook in a Government Boys Hostel from the year 1995 and therefore, applying the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs.

¶53

Umadevi & others , reported in ( 2006)4 SCC 1 , the services of the petitioner should be regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6062/2012 voiced the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012.

¶54

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents filed statement of objections in both the petitions and contended that the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 was working as a Cook on daily wages from the year 1995. The respondents have also placed on

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶56

record the documents drawn up by the District Social Welfare Officer which contained the names of persons who were working as Cooks. The name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.21 in the said list. The respondents contend that the services of the petitioner is continued through an outsourced agency namely Jayachamarajendra manpower agency and therefore, they contend that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 has approached the Labour Officer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the said case is still pending consideration. It is contended that the petitioner in W.P.No.6062/2012 filed applications before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.71247152/2011 and the same is still pending and the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 was the applicant No.16 in the said application, which fact is not disclosed by the petitioners. In terms of the order dated 12.03.2012 in W.P.No.6062/2012, this Court had stayed the removal of daily wagers.

¶57

When these petitions were listed for final hearing,

¶58

the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in both the petitions had

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶60

approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for the relief of regularization of services of daily wage employees and that the tribunal had refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. However, having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2012' for short), it directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the welfare measures as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 2012 if the petitioners are entitled to.

¶61

The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents therefore, contends that these petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts and also since the relief sought for by the petitioners was already rejected by the tribunal.

¶62

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents.

¶63

The petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 contends that he was taken on daily wages in the year 1995 and his services were continued and that he is entitled for regularization.

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶65

However, it is to be noted that even before the petitioner completed 10 years of service, the respondents had invited applications from eligible candidates for providing man power services of non-teaching staff in Government hostels. The services of the petitioner was continued through an outsourced agency which is not seriously disputed. The attempt of the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 for regularization of his service was turned down by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to extend the welfare schemes as provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2012 to the petitioner and similarly situated persons, if they were entitled to. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.25330/2012 cannot now seek for regularization of his services more particularly, when his services is continued by the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.6062/2012.

¶66

Consequently, the petitioners in both these petitions are not entitled to the relief of regularization of his service and the service of its members respectively. However, since the respondents have acknowledged that the welfare measures as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 2012, would be extended to the petitioner and similarly situated

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32687 WP No. 25330 of 2012 C/W WP No. 6062 of 2012

¶68

persons, if they are entitled to, the petitions are disposed off on the following terms:

¶69

(i) The petitions are allowed in part.

¶70

(ii) The respondent No.2 in W.P.No.6062/2012 and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.25330/2012 are directed to extend

¶71

the benefits as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 2012, to the petitioner and similarly placed persons, if they are entitled to in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2012.

¶72

(iii) This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶73

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶74

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangadharappa v. the 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 U K Ganapathy Vs the Registrar

Dr. Syed Abu Sayeed Mohammed Vs State of Karnataka

The President Vs Late Sri Krishna Hari Shanbhag

Dr. Mamatha Y., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y C Balakrishna Vs the Managing Director Watches

Sri H v Yarappa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka