Karnataka High Court
M/S Asian Security And Personnel ... vs Karnataka Legislative Assembly ... on 30 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24461
WP No. 2208 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S ASIAN SECURITY AND PERSONNEL
ARRANGEMENTS
(A PROPRIETARY CONCERN)
NO.D-15, LAXMI COMPLEX,
OLD COURT CIRCLE,
HUBBALLI - 580 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
REG UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
OFFICE AT NO.33
6TH MAIN ROAD,
Digitally
H V R LAYOUT,
signed by
CHAITHRA A MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
Location:
HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF (BY SRI. J S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA
SMT. NAIK SEEMA SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
1ST FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 233.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24461
WP No. 2208 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY/ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE HOUSE,
NO.2,
BENGALURU - 560 233.
3. THE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SABHA
LEGISLATIVE HOUSE,
BENGALURU - 560 233.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SABHA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 30.07.2015 IN NO. KASASA
/SHA.BHA/87/SWAHOGU/2015-16 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED
BY THE R-3 TILL THE ALLOTMENT OF THE TENDER TO THE
PETITIONER, BILLS PAID ETC AND ALL THE
CORRESPONDENCE MADE THERE IN BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER HEREIN TILL 2024 AND THE DEPARTMENTS
WITHIN WHICH WOULD CLEARLY ALSO SHOW THE CASE
OF THE PETITIONER BEING GENUINE, LEGAL AND
MANDATORY TO PAY THE REVISED MINIMUM WAGES AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24461
WP No. 2208 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Call for the entire records pertaining to tender notification Dated 30.07.2015 in No.KASASA/SHA.BHA/87/SWAHOGU/2015-16 vide Annexure-A issued by the Respondent No.3 till the allotment of the tender to the Petitioner, bills paid etc and all the correspondence made there in between the petitioner herein till 2024 and the departments within which would clearly also show the case of the Petitioner being genuine, legal and mandatory to pay the Revised Minimum Wages/VDA.
(ii) A writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order/communication of rejection letter dated 28.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure-H in No.KAVSASA/SHABHA/82/A.S.P.A/HIM.BA.NE.BAH/ 2022-BAGAH-3.
(iii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1 to 4 to pay the invoice bill of the Revised Minimum Wages (VDA) from the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR year 01.04.2016 to 18.03.2018 to the Petitioner herein for the services rendered of mechanized housekeeping contract labours amounting to Rs.3,65,23,510.96/- (Three Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five hundred Ten Rupees and Nine Six Paise) and interest of 12% per annum.
(iv) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Petitioner claims to be a long established proprietary concern providing security and manpower services for over 35 years and is primarily aggrieved by the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H declining to consider petitioner's request to pay revised minimum wages for contract workers as per the Karnataka Government notification.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the subsistence of the contract, the wages payable to the labourers came to be revised pursuant to statutory notifications issued under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act, 1948') and Labour Welfare Legislation. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR Petitioner submitted representations seeking release of the differential wages amounting to Rs.3,65,23,510.96/- (Three Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Rupees and Ninety six paise) with interest. The respondent, however, by endorsement dated 28.11.2024 rejected the request on the ground that contract was entered into on the basis of prevailing wage structure and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the differential wages as per 2016 notification.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said endorsement.
5. The respondent/State, on receipt of notice, has contested the petition by filing statement of objections. The respondent/authorities, however, are disputing the petitioner's claim on the premise that petitioner/contractor has entered into an agreement on 29.02.2016 evidenced at Annexure-C which clearly stipulates that fees shall remain unchanged throughout the term of the contract -6- NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR and any change in statutory minimum wage structure shall be borne by service providers, who is the petitioner herein. The State has further referred to clause (d) of the said consideration and terms of payment. The relevant clause is also extracted in the statement of objections. Referring to the said clause, the respondent/authorities claim that it is the petitioner/contractor who has to pay the escalated pay wages pursuant to Government notification. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Freight Carriers1. Citing the said judgment, the respondent/State contends that in view of arbitration clause, the dispute falls within the framework of contract agreement itself and therefore, no indulgence is warranted.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused 1 2008 SCC Online Gau 48 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR the records. The short point that arises for consideration is as under:
"Whether the State having awarded the contract can deny reimbursement/adjustment of statutory wage revision on the ground that the contract was entered into based on prevailing wages?"
Finding on the point:
7. At the outset, it must be emphasized that payment of minimum wages is not merely a contractual stipulation but a statutory and constitutional obligation. The obligation to pay minimum wages under the Act, 1948 which prescribes that no employer shall pay wages less than the wages notified by the State Government from time to time and the said statutory mandate is absolute and there is no scope for statutory dilution regarding revised minimum wages. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that payment of minimum wages is a constitutional obligation flowing under Article -8- NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR 12 of the Constitution of India and any payment below minimum wages would amount to forced labour.
8. Though State has raised a contention that petitioner is bound by the terms of the contract, the contention of the respondent that the contract was entered into based on existing wage structure is fundamentally flawed. A contract entered into by the State cannot override statutory obligation. Any clause in the contract which has the effect of defending a statutory mandate is unenforceable in law. The Doctrine is well settled that there can be no estoppel against the Statute. Therefore, even assuming that contract did not provide for escalation and there is a clause indicating that any escalation revision shall be borne by the contractor, the State being an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, is expected to act as a model employer and cannot take advantage of contractual rigidity to indirectly compel violation of labour welfare statutes. Therefore, the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR stand taken by the State appears to be irrational, unreasonable and contrary to public policy.
9. The State while contesting the captioned petition is asserting that there is a arbitration clause and petitioner needs to be relegated to work out his remedies by invoking arbitration clause. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is not disputing the terms of the contract. Petitioner's grievance and subsequent representation emanates from the revised notification regarding minimum wages issued by the State Government itself. Therefore, though the contract may appear to be in the realm of private law, once State is a party, this actions are amenable to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution and the dispute resolution mechanism indicated in the contract cannot be invoked in view of peculiar facts on hand. The refusal to revise wages despite statutory increase introduces commercial impossibility, thereby frustrating the very basis of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR contract. The Government notification revising the minimum wages has a statutory backing. Therefore, the Government is principally liable to reimburse the revised minimum wages in terms of the Government notification dated 27.02.2016. Therefore, the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 declining to consider petitioner's representation is contrary to public policy and therefore, this is a fit case warranting indulgence. Accordingly, the point formulated above is answered in the Negative.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2024 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H is hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of Rs.3,65,23,510.96/- (Three Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Rupees and Ninety six
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24461 WP No. 2208 of 2025 HC-KAR paise) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum;
(iv) The respondents shall quantify the release of differential amount payable towards revised wages within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6