The Karnataka Rajya Nagara Palike vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2012

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Rajya Nagara Palike vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO. 21966 OF 2012(LB-BMP)


BETWEEN

THE KARNATAKA RAJYA NAGARA PALIKE
NAGARASABHE PURASABHE POWRAKARAMIKALA
MAHASANGHA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
JEYEREM, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE AMRUTHAIAH,
# 315, 2ND CROSS,OMBR LAYOUT,
CHIKKA BANASWADI,BANGALORE.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(By M/S. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
      VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01

2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP BY THE SECRETARY
      LABOUR DEPARTMENT
      414, 4TH FLOOR,
      VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

3.    BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      N R SQUARE, BANGALORE
                             2

      BY ITS COMMISSIONER

4.    LABOUR COMMISSIONER
      KARMIKA BHAVAN, ITI COMPOUND
      BANNERGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29

5.    CHIEF ENGINEER
      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM)
      BBMP, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE

6.    SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
      OFFICE OF BBMP, EAST ZONE,
      18TH FLOOR, P.U.B.BUILDING,
      M G ROAD, BANGALORE-01

7.    SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
      OFFICE OF BBMP, WEST ZONE,
      BYSHAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM,
      BANGALORE.

8.    SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
      OFFICE OF BBMP, SOUTH ZONE,
      BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE
      (TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY)

9.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER)
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
      BBMP, BANGALORE-98
      (TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY)

10.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION,
      MAHADEVAPURA ZONE
      BBMP, ITPL MAIN ROAD, RHB COLONY
      BANGALORE-48
      (TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY)

11.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                              3

      YEALAHANKA DIVISION, YELAHANKA ZONE,
      BBMP, BANGALORE-64
      (TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY)

12.   CHIEF ENGINEER
      HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
      MEI LAYOUT,DASARAHALLI ZONE,
      BAGALAGUNTE, BBMP, BANGALORE
      (TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY)

13.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BBMP,
      NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, AMRUTHNAGAR,
      KONANAKUNTE MAIN ROAD, SOUDHAMANI
      LAYOUT, BANGALORE-62.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE, FOR
      M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS, FOR R3, 5 TO 13
      SRI. N B VISWANATH, AGA FOR R1, 2 & 4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R3 TO IMPLEMENT THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT
1948 & RULES AS PRESCRIBED IN THE TENDER
CONDITIONS; AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Petitioner claiming to be a registered society without producing a certificate of registration seeks to espouse the cause of Pourakarmikas said to be working under different 4 contractors who are likely to be awarded contracts by the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for lifting garbage and cleaning of roads, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to implement the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for short the 'Act' and Rules framed thereunder, as a precondition in the tender, and for a direction to reject the application of bidders who have not complied with the tender condition viz., Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2. In the absence of a registration certificate and a list of members of the petitioner, the petition, at the threshold, deserves to be rejected .

3. Failure to implement the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or violation of the provisions of the said Act, in the matter of payment of minimum wages to employees, it is needless to state employees have a right to file applications under Subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before an appropriate authority. On that score too this petition deserves to be rejected. 5

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that tenders floated are finalised subject to compliance with the tender conditions and the tender accepting authority rejects the bids or offers of contractors if there is non-compliance with Minimum Wages Act. According to the learned counsel, it is for the contractor to ensure the implementation of the Minimum Wages Act.

In the circumstances there is no merit in the petition and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court