Dismissed

Shivamogga City Corporation v. Labour Inspector

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Shivamogga City Corporation challenging orders directing payment of minimum wage arrears to workers supplied by a contractor. Relying on Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act, the Court held that the principal employer is liable to pay unpaid wages and can recover the amount from the contractor.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivamogga City Corporation Vs Labour… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 894 OF 2024 (L-MW) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1153 OF 2024 (L-MW)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 894 OF 2024:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶11

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

LABOUR INSPECTOR 1^ST CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶17

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT HASSAN REGION, HASSAN-573201.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶20

RAVINDRA K.M.

¶21

TOTAL SOLUTIONS, NO.132, CHANNASANDRA COLONY, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560061.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.UUKAAAAHAA/KAVEKA/S/CR8/2021-22 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF MINIMUM WAGES IS CONCERNED CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AND THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THE PERSONS WHO STATED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE WORKING ON THE DATE OF SO-CALLED INSPECTION MADE BY THE R1 AND ETC.

¶25

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1153 OF 2024:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶28

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶29

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

LABOUR INSPECTOR 1^ST CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶33

SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶34

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT HASSAN REGION, HASSAN-573201.

¶35

M/S. FINESERVE HOSPITALITY INDIA (PVT) LTD., (A NON-GOVT. COMPANY; A PVT. REGISTERED COMPANY) NO.525, APPA AMMA, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND PHASE, 5^TH PHASE , BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHASHIDHARA PADUVARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT.MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.UUKAAAAHAA/KAVEKA/S/CR13/2020-21 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF MINIMUM WAGES IS CONCERNED TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AND THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THE PERSONS WHO STATED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE WORKING ON THE DATE OF SO-CALLED INSPECTION MADE BY THE R1 AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

These petitions give rise to common questions of facts and law involving order passed by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 directing petitioners herein to pay certain amounts as directed in the orders impugned in these two petitions. Accordingly same are taken for analogous hearing and disposal.

¶44

Petitioner an instrumentality of the State which is expected to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act is before this Court, crying deprivation of principles of natural justice. Irony is that, after having availed the services of employees, the petitioners are disputing their statutory responsibility of paying the minimum wages on the premise of there being no relationship of employer and employee.

¶45

Petitioner No.1 the local body constituted under the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act and is administered by duly elected Mayor, Deputy Mayor and

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶48

Councillors. Petitioner No.2 is the Assistant Executive Engineer working under petitioner No.1. The

¶49

Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer of the Corporation are only officers deputed and appointed by the Government of Karnataka to discharge duties under the above stated Act. Petitioner No.1 had issued tender notification inviting tenders for contractors for outsourcing to supply manpower for maintenance of rest rooms, upkeep of verandas, dormitories in a private bus stand in Shivamogga City. The tender submitted by respondent No.3 was accepted and contract was awarded. It appears that contract was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3.

¶50

Respondent No.1 seems to have filed a complaint before the respondent No.2 under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act complaining that during the course of inspection of the private Bus Stand on 22.11.2019 and 25.10.2021, he enquired with persons working as cleaners in the private Bus Stand, who stated to have informed that

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶53

they have not been paid minimum wages by the respondent No.3 and whatever that was paid was less. It is stated in the petition, that the wages paid are less than prescribed and notified by the Government under the Act. Respondent No.2 having registered the cases No.UuKaaAaHaa/KaVeKa/S/CR-8/2021-22 (W.P.No.894/2024) and No.UuKaaAaHaa/KaVeKa/S/CR13/2020-21 (W.P.No.1153/2024) had issued the notice of enquiry to the petitioners. Notices of the proceedings were issued and served on the petitioners. As there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners by order dated 21.11.2022 in W.P.No.894/2024 and order dated 07.07.2022 in W.P.No.1153/2024 has held that petitioners and respondent No.3 herein had not paid minimum wages to the workers as notified by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act and had directed them for payment of the amount in a sum of Rs.1,26,128/- and Rs.3,50,220/respectively within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶55

Heard and perused the records.

¶56

Petitioners are before this Court contending that they have not been given an opportunity of being heard. That there is no employer-employee relationship between

¶57

the petitioners and the employees. That there was an agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.3Labour Contractor, in terms of which the respondent No.3 was contractually bound to pay the minimum wages to the employees, as such the petitioners are not liable to pay the wages to the employees.

¶58

The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, has twin objectives to achieve, one to abolish the contract labour and second to regulate the contract labour. Issue at hand falls with the latter object of the Act, which is regulating the contract labour.

¶59

Respondent No.1, having visited the premises belonging to the petitioners, found some of the workers, who have rendered the services, were not paid even the minimum wages. Thereupon respondent No.1 filed a

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶62

complaint before respondent No.2, who upon examination of the matter, directed the petitioners herein to pay minimum wages to the workers/employees who rendered their services.

¶63

The contention raised by the petitioners of there

¶64

being no relationship of employer and employee is not only contrary to the facts of the case but also amounts to upfront flouting of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had indeed entered into contract with respondent No.3 for supply of manpower for the purposes referred to above. It is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities had inspected the premises, initiated the enquiry, a notice of enquiry was also served on the petitioners. Nothing is brought on record to show that notice of enquiry was not served on them except a bald statement of notice having not been served on the petitioners.

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶66

Though petitioners has referred to certain

¶67

clauses of the agreement that had been entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.3 to buttress its argument of contractor being liable to pay dues of the employees absolving the petitioners from any liability, the said terms of the contract cannot run contrary to statutory provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

¶68

Act, 1970. Section 21(4) of the said Act dealing with responsibilities of payment of wages reads as under:

¶69

"21. Responsibility for payment of wages:

¶70

(1) xxx

¶71

(2) xxx

¶72

(3) xxx

¶73

(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the employees named in the impugned order

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:32010 WP No. 894 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1153 of 2024

¶77

are indeed working at their premises rendering the services to which they were posted. He also does not dispute that respondent No.3 had entered into contract with the petitioners. However, it is his vehement submission that it is the responsibility of respondent No.3contractor to pay the employees and the petitioners have no role in that. This submission, in the light of the provisions extracted herein above, cannot be countenanced.

¶78

As the provision of law extracted hereinabove

¶79

provides for recovery of the amount paid by the Principal employer from the contractor, the petitioner is at liberty to recover the same from the contractor.

¶80

With the above observations, petitions are

¶81

dismissed.

¶82

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶83

BSR

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Shivamogga City Corporation v. Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivamogga City Corporation v. Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N H Bhaskar Reddy Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri B R Sathish Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Mr R Shanmukha Sundar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjappa M v Vs the Managing Director

Sri Thyagraju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Panorama Enterprises Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner