Karnataka High Court
K Chalapathi And 141 Others vs The Management Of Karnataka Urban on 22 November, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w
WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022,
and WP No. 102717 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.104205 OF 2021 (L-RES) C/W
W.P. NO.100722 OF 2021, W.P. NO.102715 OF 2022
and W.P. NO.102717 OF 2022
In W.P. No.104205/2021
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NEERA SARABARAJU MATHU
VALACHARANDI MANDALI
NAUKARARA SANGHA DHARWAD,
REPTED BY SECRETARY, 580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA WATER SUPPLY AND
DRAINAGE BOARD, HUBBALLI,
REPTD BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, SRI. Z.N.HANSI & SRI.
A.P.BANKAPUR, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THE HON BLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO ISSUE ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI IN ID
NO.427/2009, DATED 05.10.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C BE
KINDLY BE QUASHED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
In W.P. No.100722/2021
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
SHASTIR CHAWAL,
OPP. KARNATAKA HIGH SCHOOL
FORT, DHARWAD-580032.
-2-
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w
WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022,
and WP No. 102717 of 2022
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.
SRI. VENKATREDDY N.HALAKATTI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUWS & DB,
HUBBALLI, MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
SUBBALLI-580032.
2 KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAL BHAVAN,
NO.5 AND 6, 1ST PHASE, 1STAE,
BTM LABOUT, BANNERUGHATTA
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Z.N.HANSI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THE HON BLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO ISSUE ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI IN ID
NO.427/2009, DATED 05.09.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C BE
KINDLY BE QUASHED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN W.P.NO.102715/2022
BETWEEN
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUWS & DB,
HUBBALLI, MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
HUBBALLI-580032.
2 KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE
BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAL BHAVAN,
NO.5 AND 6, 1ST PHASE, 1STAE,
BTM LABOUT, BANNERUGHATTA
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. Z.N.HANSI & SRI. A.P.BANKAPUR, ADVOCATES)
-3-
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w
WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022,
and WP No. 102717 of 2022
AND
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, SHASTRI CHAWAL,
OPP. KARNATAKA HIGH SCHOOL
FORT, DHARWAD-580032.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH THE AWARD
PASSED AGAINST THE P EITIONERS ON ISSUE NO.1 DATED 05.09.2019 BY
THE NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI IN I.D.NO.439/2009, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DISMISSING THE
OBSRVATION THAT IT IS A SHAM CONTRACT, OR ANY OTHER RELIEF
AWARDED TO THE RESPODNENT.
IN W.P.NO.102717/2022
BETWEEN
THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND
DRAINAGE BOARD (KUWS&DB), REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HUBBALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Z.N.HANSI & SRI. A.P.BANKAPUR, ADVOCATES)
AND
KARNATAKA NEERA SARABARAJU MATHU
VALACHARANDI MANDALI
NAUKARARA SANGHA
SHASTRI CAWAL, OPP. KARNATAKA HIGH SCHOOL,
FORT, DHARWAD-580032.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANT P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH THE AWARD
PASSED AGAINST THE P EITIONERS ON ISSUE NO.1 DATED 05.09.2019 BY
THE NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI IN I.D.NO.427/2009, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DISMISSING THE
OBSRVATION THAT IT IS A SHAM CONTRACT, OR ANY OTHER RELIEF
AWARDED TO THE RESPODNENT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w
WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022,
and WP No. 102717 of 2022
ORDER
Since the issue involved in these petitions are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order.
2. The Government, by order dated 24.03.2003, handed over the water supply distribution system in Hubli-Dharwad from Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC) to the Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board (for short referred to as 'the Board') on certain terms and conditions.
3. The Government of Karnataka published a notification dated 02.11.2006 abolishing contract labour in water supply system in five Corporations including the HDMC. The members of the petitioner-Trade Union, who are the employees of the Board, and working as Pump House Operators, Helpers, Cashier, Maintenance and Repair workers, meter readers, water tax collection clerks etc. demanded 'equal pay for equal work' and regularization of their services by stating that they are the employees under the Board and not the employees working under the contractor. The conciliation proceedings having failed, -5- WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). The Board appeared and filed its written statement denying the relationship of employer-employee and contended that members of the petitioner-Trade Union are the employees of the contractor. The learned Industrial Tribunal framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the I party Karnataka Nagara Neeru Sarabaraju Mattu Olacharandi Mandali Noukarar Sangha proves that the Respondent Executive Engineer Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Hubli Dharwad Neeru Sarabaraju Nirvanna Vibhaga Dharwad got appoints its (124 workers in I.D. No.427/2009) and (150 workers in I.D. No.439/2009) on sham and bogus contract employment?
2) If so, the (124 workers in I.D. No.427/2009) and (150 workers in I.D. No.439/2009) shown in the list Annexed to the reference are justified to consider them as permanent employees of second party the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Hubli Dharwad Neeru Sarabaraju Nirvanna Vibhaga Dharwad?
3) What order?"
-6-
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w
WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022
4. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record, held that the Board appointed 124 workers (in I.D. No.427/2009) and 150 workers (in I.D. No.439/2009) under sham and bogus contract employment and accordingly answered issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner-Trade Union. Insofar as it relates to issue No.2, the Tribunal opined that the members of the petitioner-Trade Union are not entitled for regularization of their services in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others1. Taking exception to the denial of the claim for regularization, the petitioner-Trade Unions are before this Court in W.P. No.104205/2021 and W.P. No.100772/2021, and aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the Members of the petitioner-Trade Union were appointed under sham and bogus document, the Board is before this Court in W.P. No.102715/2022 and W.P. No.102717/2022.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- Trade Union and workmen would make the following submissions:
1
(2006)4 SCC 1 -7- WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022
(a) The learned Industrial Tribunal has not appreciated the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) in its right spirit since the exception enumerated in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M.L.Kesari and Ors.2 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others3 and a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shankremma and Another Vs. The Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Training (Training) Centre, Gulbarga and Another4 have not been considered, wherein it has held that denial of absorption or regularization of services on the ground that the workmen were not appointed to sanctioned post is impermissible after permitting utilization of services for over a decade.
(b) The powers of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi's case; the issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was 2 (2010)9 SCC 247 3 AIR 2013 SC 3547 4 2021(1) KCCR 299 -8- WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 it decided in Umadevi's case. Hence rejection of claim of the members of the Trade-Union for regularization by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Umadevi is impermissible. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union & ors5.
(c) The Industrial Tribunal having held that contract is sham and bogus and not genuine ought to have considered the claim of the members of the petitioner-Trade Union for regularization of their services. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers' Union and another6.
(d) The finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the members of the petitioners - Union are the employees of the Board and not employees under the contractors is based on the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the said finding is not based on improper evidence or no evidence at 5 [2015]3 SCR 659 6 (2009)13 SCC 374 -9- WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 all and as such the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in support of the same, a reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers' Union and another7.
(e) The members of the petitioner-Trade Union are entitled for regularization of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gauri Shankar PD. Rai Vs. Sajal Chakroborty, Chief Secretary, Government of 8 Jharkhand and Others .
(f) Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibits employment of contract labour and in view of specific bar and the Gazette Notification issued by the Government prohibiting employment on contract labour in the HDMC, the members of the petitioners-Trade Union automatically become employees of the Board and the Board 7 (2009)13 SCC 374 8 (2015)8 SCC 163
- 10 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 is directly responsible for taking services of the workmen and required to absorb them in the Board in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Air India Statutory Corpn. v. United Labour Union9,
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent-Board would make the following submissions:
(a) The Government Order dated 24.03.2003 entrusting management of water supply by Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC) to the Water Board specifies that the HDMC shall continue to be the principal employer of those employees who are deployed for operations and maintenance activities under the supervision and control of Water Board and shall be responsible for the pay and other employee related expenses. Hence, the respondent-Water Board is not responsible in relation to service of the employees.
(b) The communication dated 04.02.2015 issued by the Commissioner HDMC to the State Government to extend 9 (1997) 9 SCC 377
- 11 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 'equal pay for equal work' establishes that the HDMC is the principal employer of the petitioners, who are deployed to carry out water supply entrusted to the Water Board.
(c) The members of the petitioner-Trade Unions were not appointed to a sanctioned vacant post by following due process of law and as such, their claim for regularization cannot be considered in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi.
7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are as follows:
i) Whether the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the Members of the petitioner-Trade Union were appointed under a sham and bogus contract employment is arbitrary and perverse?
ii) Whether the members of the petitioner-trade Union are entitled for regularization of their services and if so, from which date the services are required to be regularized?
- 12 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 Point No.1
9. In I.D. No.427/2009, the petitioner-Trade Union to substantiate their claim that the workmen were appointed under a sham and bogus contract examined four witnesses as W.W.1 to W.W.4 and marked documents Exs.W.1 to W.20; and the Board, to substantiate its claim that the petitioners were appointed under a contractor and not entitled for regularization examined two witnesses as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and marked 11 documents at Exs.M.1 to M.12.
10. In I.D. No.439/2009, the petitioner-Trade Union to substantiate their claim that the workmen were appointed under a sham and bogus contract examined 12 witnesses as W.W.1 to W.W.12 and marked documents Exs.W.1 to W.20; and the Board, to substantiate its claim that the petitioners were appointed under a contractor and not entitled for regularization examined two witnesses as M.W.1, and marked documents at Exs.M.1 to M.38.
11. The Industrial Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record, while answering issue No.1, at para 30 in I.D.
- 13 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 No.427/2009 (which is para No.32 in I.D.No.439/2009), has held as follows:
"30. In the present case in hand Respondent board has not registered under section 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Further contractors who have supplied contract labours to the Respondent board have not obtained license under section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Sec.9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 states that: "No principle employer of an establishment which is not registered under section 7 of the act shall not employ contract employee. Further Lordship of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the above referred citation have clearly held that in order to apply Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 principle employer has to register as per section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and contractors who are supplying contract labours to the principle employer have to obtain license as per Sec.12 of Contract labour act. Further the Lordship in the above cited ruling have held that if any one of the condition is not complied with the provisions of contract labour act will not attract. Further Lordship have held that in a situation wherein either of these 2 conditions is not satisfied the position would be that the workmen employed by intermediate in deemed to have been employed by the principle employer in the present case in hand also Respondent board failed to comply both conditions i... it is not register under section 7 of the contract labour act and failed to prove that
- 14 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 contractors who have supplied contract labour have obtained license under section 12 of the contract labour act. Bo Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 will attracts in the present case. Further in the situation in view of the principle laid down in the above cited rulings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the workmen employed by the Respondent board is to be treated as employees of the Respondent board. So contention of the Respondent board that first party claimants are workmen of the contracts and no relationship of employer and employee exists with them and first party claimant is unacceptable. The available evidence on record proves that the Respondent got appointed 124 workers as shown in the annexure A annexed to the reference under sham and bogus contract employment. Hence, I answer issue no.1 in the affirmative."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Airport of India (supra), at para 47 and 48 has held as follows:
"47. It is true that in exercising the writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings and award of the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, cannot reappreciate evidence. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority should ordinarily be considered as final. The findings of the Tribunal should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that the material on which the Tribunal had acted was insufficient or not credible.
- 15 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022
48. It is also true that as long as the findings of fact are based on some materials which are relevant, findings may not be interfered with merely because another view is also possible. But where the Tribunal records findings on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, it is certainly open to the High Court to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal."
The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record and it cannot be said that it is based on an improper evidence or no evidence at all. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the Board appointed 124 workers in I.D. No.427/2009 and 150 workers in I.D. No.427/2009 under sham and bogus contract employment.
13. A perusal of the Government Order dated 24.03.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R3, entrusting the management of water supply by the HDMC to the Board specifies that the HDMC shall continue to be the principal employer of those employees who are deployed for operations and maintenance activities under the supervision and control of Water Board and shall be responsible for the pay and other
- 16 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 employee related expenses. The list appended to the government order dated 24.03.2003 does not indicate that the members of the petitioner-Trade Union were deployed by the HDMC to operate and maintain activities under the supervision and control of the Board. Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed on daily wages after the Government Order dated 24.03.2003 was passed. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the Board that the members of the petitioner-Trade Union are the employees of the HDMC is not acceptable and the evidence on record clearly indicates that the members of the petitioner-Trade Union are the employees appointed on daily wages by the Board.
Point No.2
14. The next question for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services having regard to the admitted fact that the workmen were not appointed against a vacant sanctioned post by following due process of law.
15. The workmen, admittedly, have been working for more than ten years and deprival of regularization of their
- 17 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 services would constitute unfair labour practice. Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines "unfair labour practice" to mean any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Act. Clause 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act specifies that to employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen would amount to unfair labour practice and the Industrial Tribunal with reference to Section 2(ra) and the Fifth Schedule has held that the contention of the Board that the workmen were appointed under a contractor amounts to unfair labour practice on the workers.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh (supra), at para 15 and 38 has held as follows:
"15. On the other hand, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in the light of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , in the absence of a sanctioned post the relief such as prayed by the appellants cannot be given.
- 18 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022
38. We direct the State of Punjab to regularise the services of the appellants by creating necessary posts within a period of three months from today. Upon such regularisation, the appellants would be entitled to all the benefits of services attached to the post which are similar in nature already in the cadre of the police services of the State. We are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to the costs throughout. In the circumstances, we quantify the costs to Rs 10,000 to be paid to each of the appellants."
17. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shankremma (supra), at paragraphs 3(a) and 3(e) has held as follows:
"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 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.
e) 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
- 19 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 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 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."
18. Though the members of the petitioner-Trade Union were not appointed to sanctioned vacant posts by following due process of law, however are entitled for regularization of services in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Shankremma.
19. The issue whether the workmen are entitled for regularization of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment is no more res integra in view of the decision
- 20 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gauri Shankar PD. Rai, wherein, at para 17, it is held as follows:
"17. However, in our considered view, the reliance placed upon the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court does support the contention of the complainants for the reason that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents as they have partially fulfilled the direction given by this Court as well as the High Court with regard to the regularisation of the services of the complainants from the year 1987. However, further direction is issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the complainants from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers i.e. from the year 1981. Not complying with the directions issued by this Court from the abovementioned year would amount to deprivation of the legitimate rights of the complainants as determined by the High Court and this Court in the judgments and orders."
20. The Board has contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the water supply which was entrusted under the government order dated 24.03.2003 has been withdrawn and as such the claim of the members of the petitioner-Trade Union for regularization of their services cannot be considered, and the same is not acceptable for the simple fact that the members of the petitioner-Trade Union are the employees
- 21 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 working under the Board and on the premise that the entrustment of water supply has been withdrawn, the members of the petitioner-Trade Union cannot be deprived of their legitimate right for regularization of their services in the light of catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also pertinent to state here that withdrawal of the entrustment of supply of water is after the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.
21. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal insofar as it relates to holding that the workmen were appointed under sham and bogus contract cannot be interfered with, and insofar as it relates to denial of the claim of the workers for regularization of their services requires interference. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
i) W.P. No.104205/2021 and W.P. No.10722/2021 are allowed
ii) W.P.NO.102715/2022 and W.P.NO.102717/2022 are dismissed.
iii) The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board is hereby directed to regularize the services of the members of the petitioners-Trade Union in the respective post in which they were working from the
- 22 -
WP No. 104205 of 2021 C/w WP No.100722 of 2021, WP No.102715 of 2022, and WP No. 102717 of 2022 date of their initial appointment and extend all monetary benefits flowing from such regularization in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gauri Shankar PD. Rai (supra). The said exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61