Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2018
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.33554-33633/2017(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH
S/O RAMU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
VALVEMEN
2. SRI ANNEGOWDA
S/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
VALVEMEN
3. SRI YOGANARASIMHA
S/O KAMBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
VALVEMEN
4. SRI T KRISHNA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
METER READER
5. SRI M N SANJAY KUMAR
S/O P NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
METER READER
6. SRI T JANARDHANA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
2
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
VALVEMEN
7. SRI D RAMESH
S/O DODDASIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YERS
METER READER
8. SRI B M VARUNA
S/O K V BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
ATTENDER
9. SRI C P MANOHAR
S/O PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
GANGMEN
10. SRI NARASIMHEGOWDA
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
VALVEMAN
11. SRI P RAVI
S/O LATE PUTTABASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
VALVEMEN
12. SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE KAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
VALVEMEN
13. SRI JAYASIDDAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
VALVEMEN
3
14. SRI K H NAGASRAJU
S/O HALAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PALI KELASA
15. SRI S KRISHNAGOWDA
S/O SANNAMAGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PALI KELASA
16. SRI K SHASHIKUMAR
S/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PALI KELASA
17. SRI GURULINGU
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
GANGMEN
18. SRI MARIGOWDA
S/O CHIKKAKARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PALI KELASA
19. SRI C K KRUPARAJU
S/O G KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PALI KELASA
20. SRI H S NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O L N SHIVALINGAIAH
PALI KELASA
21. SRI H P CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O PUTTEGOWDA
PALI KELASA
4
22. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH G M
S/O D MARIMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
PALIKELASA
23. SRI J P ASHOK
S/O PUTTASWAMIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PALI KELASA
24. SRI K S DINESH
S/O SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PALI KELASA
25. SRI M N BETTASWAMY
S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PALI KELASA
26. SRI Y H YOGESH
S/O H HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PALI KELASA
27. SRI K N NAGARAJU
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
VALVEMEN
28. SRI R K MAHENDRAKUMAR
S/O M KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
29. SRI S CHAMRAJU
S/O C M SUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
METER READER
5
30. SRI M NANDEESHA
S/O MAHADEVU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PALI KELASA
31. SRI A C RAGHUNATH
S/O CHANURANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PALI KELASA
32. SRI B S SHANTHARAJU
S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
METER READER
33. SRI R SURESH
S/O LATE B RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
VALVEMEN
34. SRI PRAKASH
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
VALVEMEN
35. SRI N ANILKUMAR
S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
VALVEMEN
36. SRI M R SHIVAKUMAR
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
VALVEMEN
37. SRI S CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
VALVEMEN
6
38. SRI SWAMY
S/OLATE HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
GANGMEN
39. SRI M R GOUTHAM
S/O M K RAMALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
GANGMEN
40. SRI RAVI
S/O LATE NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
VALVEMEN
41. SMT SARVAMANGALA
W/O G YOGESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
42. SMT KEMPAJAMMA
W/O M S KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
43. SMT B K SWETHA
W/O LATE H K SHIVAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
44. SRI GANGADHAR
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ATTENDAR
45. SRI M R RAGHAVENDRA
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
METER READER
7
46. SMT ASHARANI
W/O R SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
47. SRI K SUNIL
S/O KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PALI KELASA
48. SRI G VISHAKANTA
S/O C S GURUBASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
49. SRI. R. ABHILASH
S/O RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
METER READER
50. SRI. PREMKUMAR
S/O ST JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT
51. SRI. M.R. SHIVARAMU
S/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
52. SRI. K.B. BORIAH
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WATCHMEN
53. SRI. PUTTARAMU
S/O LATE MUDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PALI KELASA
8
54. SRI. N. MAHADEVA SWAMY
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PALI KELASA
55. SRI. A.T. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
VALVEMEN
56. SRI. P. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
PALI KELASA
57. SRI. SATISH
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
GANGMEAN
58. SRI. K.R. RAVI
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PALI KELASA
59. SRI. C.P. MAHESH
S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
VALVEMEN
60. SRI. S.A. DARSHAN GOWDA
S/O SURYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
VALVEMEN
61. SRI. S.C. RAGHUVEER
S/O CHIKKAPAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
METER READER
9
62. SRI.D. RAVIKUMAR
S/O C. DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
63. SRI. SHIVARAJU
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
VALVEMEN
64. SRI. NAGENDRA
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
GANGMEN
65. SRI. H.R. MOHANKUMAR
S/O K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PALI KELASA
66. SRI. C.K. ANAND
S/O LATE KALANIGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
VALVEMEN
67. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O LATE CHIKKAMARISIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
GANGMEN
68. SRI. R. MAHADEVA SWAMY
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT,
69. SRI. A. C. SHIVAMADHU
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
LEDGER ASSISTANT
10
70. SRI. M.A. JAYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PALI KELASA
71. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O DODDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
VALVEMEN
72. SRI. M. V SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
GANGMEN
73. SRI RAJU
S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
VALVEMEN
74. SRI M C CHELUVAPPA
S/O LATE N CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
GANGMEN
75. SRI K S MANUKUMR
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PALI KELASA
76. SRI S BABU
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
VALVEMEN
77. SHIVAMADHU
S/O GURUMALLA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
GANGMEN
11
78. SRI P RAGHU
S/O PUTTARAMU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
LEAKAGE ASSISTANT
79. SRI M N ANILKUMAR
S/O D S NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
VALVEMEN
80. SRI ASWATH
S/O KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
GANG MAN
ALL ARE WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
OPERATIONS SUB DIVISION
MANDYA DIVISION
MANDYA - 571401
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:MAHESH R UPPIN, ADV)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
2. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
& DRAINAGE BOARD
NO.5, JALABHAVAN
12
BTM LAYOUT, I PHASE, I STAGE
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU 560029
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
& DRAINAGE BOARD
OPERATION SUB DIVISION
MANDYA 571401
4. CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MANDYA
BY ITS COMMISSIONER - 571 401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:VIJAYKUMAR Y H, AGA FOR R1
SRI:H C SHIVARAMU, ADV FOR R2 TO R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESOPNDENTS TO PAY EQUAL
PAY FOR EQUAL WORK DONE BY THE PETITIONES AS
AGAINST THE REGULARLY APPOINTED PERSONS
DISCHARGING THEIR DUTIES IN THE SIMILAR POSTS IN
THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE
BOARD WITH ALL THE ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS TO TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PA AND
ETC.,
13
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking for the following relief's:
(i) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay equal pay for equal work done by the petitioners as against the regularly appointed persons discharging their duties in the similar posts in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board with all the arrears from the date of the appointment of the petitioners to till the date of payment with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.; and
(ii) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter dated 14.11.2017 bearing No.UDD 47 UWE 2016 marked as Annexure-J issued by the respondent No.1; and
(iii) Pass such other orders as this Court deems fit to grant under the 14 circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2.(a) Sri.Mahesh R Uppin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have agreed to extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work as sought for by the petitioners and forwarded necessary documents to the Government for it's approval. He submits that respondent No.1 instead of approving the recommendation made by respondent No.2 to 4 at Annexure-H for extending the benefit of equal pay for equal work in favour of the petitioners, has turned down their claim by an order dated 14.11.2017 produced at Annexure-J.
(b). Learned Counsel submits, this Court allowed the Writ Petition Nos.52137-151/2017, filed by the persons similarly placed like that of petitioners as under:
"6. The mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that a person shall 15 not be discriminated if they are working in similar cadre and also Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India mandates equal payment for equal work. In the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India and also in the light of the judgments of this Court referred to above (WP No.6058/2006 (L-RES/PIL) in the case of Karnataka State City Corporation Vs State of Karnataka and Others decided on 12.03.2014 and in WP No.18110/2012 (GM-TEN) in the case of Tumkur Jilla Pauradalitha Samsthegala Mazdoor Sangha Vs Government of Karnataka and Others decided on 20.08.2014), it is appropriate to direct the sixth respondent-Municipality to consider the representation at Annexure - J.
7. In addition to the above, the petitioners are at liberty to make a detailed representation/s to all the respondents. If such representations are made, the competent authorities are directed to 16 consider the same and pass orders within a period of three months thereafter."
(c). He further submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.213/2013 and connected cases has held as under:
"54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the Courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been 17 summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.
55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitive enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the 18 action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
56. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:
Article 7 The States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with"
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;19
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working
conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone
to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.
India is a signatory to the above Covenant, having ratified the same on 10.04.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and 20 unambiguous right and is vested in every employee whether engaged on regular or temporary basis."
(d). Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petitions by directing the respondents to re-consider the claim of petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgments of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Sri.Y.H. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Harsha, learned Counsel for Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 jointly submit that, if the petitioners file fresh representation in detail referring to the judgments on which they are placing reliance, the respondents would consider their claim on merits and in accordance with law and prays to grant reasonable time to do so.
21
4. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER The writ petitions stand disposed of. The order dated 14.11.2017 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J stands quashed.
The petitioners are granted liberty to submit detailed representations to the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order by appraising their claim and by enclosing the aforesaid judgments on which they place reliance for consideration of their claim.
In such case, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall consider the said representations on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of judgments stated supra, within two months from the date of receipt of such representations and submit report to the respondent No.1 to take further steps in the matter.
In such case, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the recommendation submitted by respondent 22 Nos.2 to 4 on merits and in accordance with law and in light of the judgments stated supra.
In view of the disposal of main petition, IA.3/2018 filed for direction does not survive for consideration, hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-