Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shankremma W/O Sangappa Anr vs The Agriculture Officer, Anr on 6 March, 2020
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WP Nos.83563-83564/2012 (S-REG)
Between:
1. Smt. Shankremma W/o Sangappa,
Aged about 59 years, Occ: Cook,
R/o C/o Agriculture Officer,
Agriculture Teaching (Training) Centre,
Kotnoor-D, Tq. Dist. Gulbarga.
2. Smt. Ratnamma W/o Revansiddappa Dwar,
Age 51 years, Occ: Cook,
R/o C/o Agriculture Officer,
Agriculture Teaching (Training) Centre,
Kotnoor-D, Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga.
... Petitioners
(By Smt. P. Vilaskumar, Advocate)
And:
1. The Agriculture Officer,
Agriculture Training (Training) Centre,
Kotnoor-D, Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga-585102.
2. The Joint Director for Agriculture,
Office of Joint Director of Agriculture,
Gulbarga-585102.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, Government Advocate )
2
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
certiorari for quashing the endorsement issued by
respondent No.2 dated 09.07.2012 which is at Annexure-H.
Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for the
regularization of the services of the petitioners with
retrospective date of their appointments along with all
consequential benefits including that of continuity of service,
full back wages & all consequential benefits. Issue any other
writ of order as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioners poor casual workers employed by the respondents as Cooks since more than a quarter century are knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the order dated 09.07.2012 at Annexure-H whereby their request for regularization of their service has been negatived by the respondents.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned Government Advocate oppose the writ petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order. They 3 have also filed the Statement of Objections contending that petitioners are only casual labourers; they are not working against any sanctioned post; in view of decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 44, no relief can be granted to them; petitioners; so contending, the learned AGA seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants relief to the petitioners for the following reasons:
a) Assertion of the petitioners that they have been in the casual employment of the respondents since more than a quarter century is admitted in the impugned order itself; there is no complaint against the petitioners about the work being done by them; in fact the case of the petitioners is covered by para-44 of Umadevi (supra); many such casual employees have been 4 regularized in service is a fact which this Court takes judicial notice of. Thus, the ratio in Umadevi does not come in the way of regularizing the services of the petitioners.
b) The second contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners have been engaged is true but it is not against any sanctioned post, is not legally tenable, the settled position being that the sanction pales into insignificance once an employee is made to work for very long years like the petitioners herein, continuously; even otherwise the employees do not have any role in the matter of the post being sanctioned; once it is shown that the petitioners have been working without the aid of Court orders of stay uninterruptedly then relief cannot be denied to them vide decision of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others [2013 (139) FLR 309]. The case of the petitioners also finds 5 supports from the judgment dated 16.12.2010 in W.A.No10221/2010 between Krishna Grameena Bank vs. Shivamma which has been rendered in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Kesari cases, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
c) The services of the petitioners were dispensed with from 18.12.1991; in KID No.109/1991 the Labour Court Gulbarga vide Judgment & award dated 15.10.1992 directed their reinstatement, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B and accordingly petitioners have been continued in the employment. Thereafter, petitioners raised the complaint as to refusal of minimum wages in K.V.K 08/2005 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the same came to be favoured vide order dated
04.04.2006 a copy whereof is at Annexure-C; the challenge to this order also came to be turned down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.413/2007, 6 substantially. Petitioners again had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.82141-142/2010 (S-REG) and a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd 19.06.2012 directed the respondents to consider claim of the petitioners for regularization; despite all this the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services has been rejected; apparently the rejection is unsustainable, to say the least.
d) It is the policy of State expressed through the provisions of the Constitution that there should not be unfair labour practice and that the persons in the public employment should be treated with due fairness; the respondents are not the East India Company but being the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution have to conduct themselves as the model employers; the fact that the petitioners are allowed to work more than two and half decades uninterruptedly prima facie establishes the requirement of their services on 7 permanent basis and therefore their services need to be regularized;
e) Ordinarily a writ Court does not itself direct the regularization of services of the employees, the right course being a direction being issued to the concerned to consider the claim for regularization; however, case of the petitioners is an exception that compels this Court has to deviate from the traditional approach inasmuch as, petitioners were before this Court twice as already mentioned above; they were made to fight a legal battles before the Labour Court and before the authority even for payment of their minimum wages, of course successfully; the text of the impugned order, the contention in the Statement of Objection and the submission of the learned AGA warrant this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioners. 8
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeeds; a writ certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; a writ mandamus issues to the respondents to grant regularization of petitioners' services with retrospective effect from the date they completed their ten years service, and further to grant all consequential benefits as are admissible in law.
Time for compliance is eight weeks; if compliance is not done within eight weeks, then the respondents together shall pay a monthly sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners each in addition to the wages they have been drawing, till after their services are regularized.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP