IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY 01? NOVEMBER ~ V.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE)[.bG.SABHAHiTi"": ~ _ it
AND
THE I-1ON'BLE MR .JUsTicEVA.N.\}E_N'uooPAi,AA G.o'Wn(A..aA:'
WritAm3eal N'c;,3~2_6o 0Af"2(_)O5V '
Between:
Karnataka Urban Water Supply'-.85 _ .V .
Drainage Board Contract.F3Vm'p103Iee,s' ' 'V
Association (A r6:.gistered Trade Union
Registered under the Endian "Ii'rade._Union-s" Act)
Representedbj? «.i_ts=P{r_es1dent*'.._ '
Having its No.58V7f' o_
Ready
Beiiary 1" , -- .. Appellant
(By SriiA'Vp.R,Datar;'A:AdVooat«e="a1ong with Sri K.Subba Rao,
Senior Coiiflpsel) A A it
Then/[ana_gement..of Karnataka Urban
' .Water Sjuppiy 85 Drainage Board Division
Representedviby the Executive Engineer
I-I.I'§.onnegfoxz{da"'i .. Respondent
(B}}"'M / ;C:Bandi Assts., Advocates)
This writ appeal is filed 11/ s 4 of the Karnataka High
Act praying to set aside the order passed in writ
petition N0.28653 of 1999 dt. 22.06.2005 and etc.
This appeal coming on for hearing before Court this
day, Sabhahit, 3., delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed by the respondentV”in’ywript
petition No.28653 of 1999 being aggrieved b3E_:”ordef’e-dared
22.06.2005, wherein the learned Sing1eyJLi_dge.iiofi:v thiisutiourt
has set aside the impugned award -the
Court dated 24.05.1999 in 2.V’of__1’99i8.:anidlrernittedi”2
the matter to the Labour iifrveshiorders in
accordance with lawppportunity to the
parties to 1ead4_e’.ri.dence”1f and has further
directed are employed or
reinstated services shall not be
terrninated-Atiililiitheis finally adjudicated on merits by
the Labour’Ctourt–. V V’
. ‘Fhe«y_.essentiiial facts of the case leading up to this
I r’efe’rence to the rank of the parties before the
learnedfiingle Judge are as follows:
respondent herein filed writ petition No.28653 of
being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour
___ceurt, Hiibli in Ref.No.2 of 1998 dated 24.05.1999, wherein
the Labour Court allowed the reference. The reference was
made to the Labour Court for adjudication of the following
points of dispute:
\;J>
“1. Whether the claimants are workmen
defined under the I.D.Act 1947? _ _ T”
2. Whether the respondent is
as defined under I.D.Act :~a’s””pe,r
Administrative Act or underA:,See_tioh 22_6’~of
Constitution, clairnants. are l V ” entitled 1 . V the
reliefs sought for’? V.
3. Management éxecutive it ‘En.gi.n’eer,
Karnataka drainage _ and ;_ supply board,
Bellary has to :t_h.–e contract
Labour I uothers?
_ justified is not so for
what rel’ief;»’&_theise l,53£”2Vi_’x1zorkers§ are entitled?”
V’f’,he’*appei1ia.intsi filed a claim statement averring
that the ifirsit .partyi’is”a..:_iiCE’rade Union registered under the
Trade iU’i1ionsi’A.et,__l_926 and is espousing the cause of 142
.Awo.rk1ne11.A*etnployed by the second party. The service
i pa’rtici.ilarjs.__o’f;,.’the 142 workmen was given in AnneXure–A
annexed ltoithe claim statement with a request to treat the
H same as part and parcel” of the Claim statement. It is further
“avei’red that the said 142 workmen involved in this case
i ” -«have been working for more than seven years. They have
been working as pump house helpers, filter bed helpers,
valve men, torn cocks, maintenance and repairs workers etc.
Xmj.
in the water supply section of the second party. Sorneof the
workmen have been working in the drainage secti_on:’fof”the
second party as sewage attenders. About 75 hawf
been sent to Bellary and I-Iospet City.Municipalityyyith’_’othve_ri V’
regular employees on deputation’ basis’ v(2i.t_h’~
03.04.1997 and 10.04-.199′?”–respecti\re1y in-a_n’sfer loft”
distribution section of the the second
party to the City with the water
distribution section. of shown at
SI.Nos. 58 Pignnertjiiireijifirieiejsent to Bellary City
Muflicipaliityy were sent to I-Iospet
vfrorlrmen involved in the case
have and perennial nature of work.
However, second- party did not care to recall their
‘ seiw/iceistr. despite repieaited requests and demand. The first
directly appointed by the second party
and havveiibieein working directly under the supervision and
control of the second party. Second party itself has been
znaiking payment i.e., monthly wages to the first party
yfxorkmen and persons at SI.Nos.58 to 142 to Anne;x:ure–A
and are being paid monthly wages with effect from their
deputation to the said Municipality from the said
Municipality. It is also averred that alleged contract
\,.)
contended by the second party is nominal one, there.__is no
genuine contract and the 142 workmen have ne\}’er:”*«been
employed through any contractors, they are neitheriipcciritracti ‘
workers nor are they task workers ancl wherefore;»praye.d to it
answer the points referred to the :Labolur’iVCoL1rt* f.«;mau.£’i1or
the first party. The second filed coclnteristpatvemeint tow!’
the claim statement filed by all the
allegations made in the fiI’St party as
a pack of lies. It the first party
workmen arei:contract:”lahoiurers’asi’alleged and relief filed
can be tract ljiabour Act and not under
the Karnataka Urban Water Supply
and lT)’rainage “has transferred distribution
respponsibilitly’ ._ivn*so far as maintenance of water supply to
Council and Bellary City Municipal
have been made a necessary party.
3. t:’jis.e:’further averred that contractors under whom
the ii:st’part:y workman are employed are not made party to
i..f_’» theproceedings and denied all the averments made in paras
to 11 of the claim statement filed by the first party and
wwherefore, the second party requested the court to dismiss
the application with exemplary costs.
‘VJ-
4. On behalf of the Management, MWs–1 to 4 were
examined and on behalf of the workmen WWs–i to 3 were
examined. The Labour Court after considerin»gFi.the
contention of the learned counsel appearing fo_r”‘the.,’_~p.arti_es«A
and the material on record adduced before and -« .,
second party, by award dated’ 2g4,o:f».i999.”–.:hc1d._,,:_”dd_af
claimants are workmen as defined under Industrial Disputes -‘
Act, 1947 and respondent under the
Industrial Disputes _’iSection of the
Administrative Act or under Airtibie Constitution
and the claimar;.ts,’«are:__entitied’~.to’itlierelief sought for and
that r.espond’e?r[;–r–Managyeirnient should regularise the services
of the work_nien– atid”‘according1y passed the following
orders.
A “AWARD
,V”‘R:eference is allowed and as per list
‘ the claimants along with the written
a._rguri1’er1ts is upheld and their to produce some
“of_fi~the documents which are produced by the
if applicants, they bear signatures of the executive
if Engineer, A.E.E. Junior Engineer and
Supervisor they have deposed before this court,
stating that these books are bearing their
signature but they are not aware of the remarks
written by them only. Under the circumstances,
responsible officer should not have gone to such
\…}
an extent saying that these applicants are not.___
concerned with them. _ 1 i
19. New Coming to the next aspect
case Labour department had once inspected ‘ii
give names of the employees _’after’:..’:v
verification but that had been at
thereafter again applicants i V .. approacghesdll ” the
Labour Department OV1′},’.,.,,:t:f.i~’§3fiI’ reqtgiestg
inspected concerned areas uan_d~gave.r’epo:rt ofvfithe
responsible officer”afte1’iAlproo’eedi,ngs. Under the
circumstances, it difficult
to accept’ con.tenVtiotn of re-sporident board
that ‘not’ their direct
employees,,. in V. i « r employees through
contrac’t5oirs:;7§:.; Vrlnprdeiii ‘t’o~wsa:Vve their skin they
have –tried.th_yeir ,,1’e~v_§£1 —b_e’sti by concealing all these
docurnenits aisothey are not ready to own
. their”;=esI30¥?§:ibAifit3?:*”R In fact, from the facts and
service “to made permanent rejecting the
conteintion of the respondent and employees are
– the reliefs sought for ~ list of workers
it to it.”
‘f’hat”being aggrieved by the above referred award
passedvdiby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli in
“Re’I’.No.2 of 1998 dated 24.05.1999, the Management
“preferred writ petition No.28653 of 1999 seeking for
quashing of the judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court as per the impugned award. The learned Single Judge
\..s.
after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and scrutinising the material on record by judgm.er1t:.fd.ated
22.06.2005 held that no reasoning is
order for granting the relief by the, »La.bour_’i(ii3ioii1′:t’:vundeiriptheby
impugned award. Labour Court:”:has’_”inot ‘ii1’1:£0l.lEl:}’€:
document on which the respongdentbhas.reliiedfifiiuvponri andf’
deposition of all the witnessesiezstaminecih’Ofihbehalf of the
workmen and the .. was no written
appointment order. bieeiiliapipointed through
employmenteizchiangevias the evidence of the
workmen ngotiibeen considered by the
Labour _’0ourt proceeded to order
regularisation on the basis of list furnished
at the, time i of.,iargumenti.T. The learned Single Judge further
. obiserved that the icaiuse–title to the impugned award shows
is “Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Di’ainage.iBbard Contract Employees’ Association” and the
same “asi7~well as the members of the Union are all contract
labourers who have formed a Union to agitate their rights in
0 appropriate forum which shows that they were not employed
with the Board and accordingly held that award passed by
the Labour Court is liable to be quashed and accordingly
allowed the writ petition and passed the following order:
\}.J5,
“(a) Writ petition is allowed. _
(b) The impugned award of the
Court is hereby quashed. it C
(c) The entire matter is remitted
the Labour Court with a c_1i»reC.t4ion.’ltoivireistorel.i_’_}x
Reference No.2/98 to its origina-lrif it
parties choose to lead, additional. evidence’; to
permit them to lead’ eyfiidencehitand –.rthere*after
consider the entire case”»onV.__merits«Candi in
accordance with 1 by _ p
(d) If any of theseCerripiloyeesi_’a1;e_j.employed
or reinstated anidlllareitiinil services
shall the dispute is finally
adj the Labour Court.”
‘apggriieved -by the above referred order
passed by’ the Judge, allowing the writ
petition and remitting. the matter to the Labour Court for
C’ iresh disposal._ in accordance with law as referred to above,
A responc’.en.tiV_inlf’the writ petition has preferred this appeal.
We have_ heard learned Senior Counsel appearing
–,,for-the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
ii _,V_L,earned Senior Advocate submitted that a detailed award
has been passed by the Labour Court. The evidence
adduced before the Labour Court clearly shows that 142
workmen were employed by the respondent and not by the
K_9…)>
10
Contractors and their salary was being paid by the
respondent. The list of employees was furnished as
Annexure to the claim statement and not at the”vti_1n_e”–Vvof
arguments and the Labour Court has 1oo_l§e.d ~
evidence adduced by the parties and__hasl°
the points referred to it in favour’–_of ;the’lwor_k’1ne’n the
reason assigned by the learne:d”SingleitJudge V
the award passed by the Court” éiannot be
sustained and the b*e_lpse:lt~aside. The learned
Senior Counsel__furthe_r… learned Single
Judge Was inl ayvard passed by
the the matter to the Labour
Court and passed by the learned Single
Judge. should._bb’eVivlsetl-aside and writ petition filed by the
– respondent’ herein ‘oelidismissed.
7,. other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the order passed
by the learned Single Judge is justified since the matter is
S remitted and all contentions can be taken up before the
Labour Court and interest of employees has been
safeguarded by the order of the learned Single Judge.
‘\.c,..a
ll
8. We have given careful consideration to the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and scrutinised the material on record. The3_materia.I .
record would clearly show that the list 0f”‘e1riployees,VWas””
furnished by the appellant herein
statement as the first party beforerthe Lacbo’tn’v.y_Qoui’t
Annexure and was not producved.Viyva’t.Vtheof arguments.
Similarly, the fact jt1~.;%§ the appellant is
“Karnataka Urban Water=_S.t1ppply'”‘~aind’jdfirainage Board
Contract not necessarily
mean thatthe-i:_rnern.bers:iof’e_the vapp°ellant~Union are workmen
are appointed}’.l:§yf,_the eo_ntr_ac_tors. What was required to be
consideiriediby the “Court was as to whether the 142
employees who are the members of the above Union were
i * appoirited directly respondent or by the contractors as
contesting parties. Perusai of the award
piashsedV.b_yf:thie Labour Court would clearly show that the
award passed by the Labour Court cannot at all be sustained
a.Sb_iii’i=.he Labour Court has not at all considered and
appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties before it
and after referring to the evidence adduced by the parties
has proceeded to hold that there is no correspondence
between the board and the contractors. There is no order of
VJ
12
the Board giving such contract work to any the
Contractors but to say that they are working’
contractors cannot be believed on the face of itpianda B’
on record would show that on the, contrazjs/iiithie*Board’_’_iis
careful not to keep any records tl1i._at~’the’~applicants.are
likely to become permanen’t__e’mployees of andwi’
applicants are permanent ernpl’oy_e’e_s under the
respondent–Board -Working in the
respondent since Board has not
shouldered them permanent
employeesiand.iaiocorr1iin;<§ly_' 142 workmen are
not the labourers working under the
Board directly.' of the Labour Court is not
basedupponii thAe"niate:rial on record. Though the Labour
Court i{?iasV'l'1teproduced the depositions of MWs–1 to 4 and
WWS-*l__vV'to"Bgbut has only a ' d a portion of the
evi.dence..i:I't.s. clear on scrutiny of the evidence adduced by
the parties before the Labour Court that Labour Court has
"'i"_noti."a«lt all appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties
before it in the proper perspective and has not even
considered the evidence adduced by the parties in the right
perspective with reference to their evidence. Just to cite an
example it is clear from the evidence of G.Shivanna who is
\/°-»J* *
13
examined on behalf of the workman before the Labour Court
would clearly show that according to him there 34
persons in I-Iospet Division and persons at Sl.Nos;~1– l.I”r_i1Al9i
in the claim statement have been working in”Ho’s.pet._1Div1sion K x
and he has produced certificate torthatileffect as per?-J,-LIV
he has also produced certificate of ltheil’workmla’nlgivorkiiqg
driver Ex.W2 whose name is at and does
not refer to all the 142″ vvorknien’;iijfiirfrilarlyl evidence
adduced on behalf of the that the
employees of pa;;.;yip directly appointed
by the resf;o1″if,1’5fi’ti~- clear that the order
passed by the’i5Labyol1r cannot at all be sustained as the
Labour ‘Court has iconsider the evidence adduced by
the Apartieslliliseforevl’ithbeifore concluding that all the 142
if if ”’–.employees were working as labourers of the Board.
liC’o_u’;rt ought to have considered the evidence of
each one “of’ithe witnesses examined on behalf of the
V’-,W’OI’kIf1E:1′:]’3 and management to find out as to how many
“‘ili_Worl<°men were Working directly under the Board. How many
l wfiorkmen have been sent on deputation or as to whether the
work of maintenance handed over to Municipality of Bellary
and Hospet and without considering the said material fact,
the Tribunal has abruptly arrived at the conclusion that all
\9«.}-
14
the 142 workmen were directly employed by the respondentw
Board and wherefore, though not for the reasons by
the learned Single Judge it is clear that
judgment and award passed by_;the__4Lal:3ourA” .4_:date.dui
24.05.1999 in Ref.No.2 of 1998 cia,nnfot’~at an
and the same is liable to bci__s”e.t aside.’ This..C’o._urt…cannota.i’
appreciate the evidence adduce_dii:Aby_ the parties_in_eExercise of
its writ jurisdiction the contention of
the learned counsel Zappiearingiforiiliitheiiparties and the
material opportunity should
be given to additional evidence if they
so desire toisubpstanltiatebtheirjcontention before the Labour
Court wherelfo:re,i”appropriate that the matter is
remitted to Labour Court for fresh disposal in
i act-*ord5ance..gwith after affording opportunity to the
partie–s_VTto_g adduee additional evidence. It is also necessary to
direct that:’..«BJella1y Municipality and I-Iospet Municipality
shall” impleaded as parties to the proceedings if an
appiliication is filed in View of the above as even according to
i the workmen they have been working in the Municipality at
Bellary as per the Annexure filed along with the claim
statement in view of the fact that admittedly some of the
workmen at S1.Nos.58 to 112 are working in Municipality
VJ’
E5
and wages is being paid by the said Municipal Council and
for effective determination of the points of the Labourifloiirt
it is necessary that the Municipality under wh_ich
Sl.Nos.58 to;142 as per the lis_t….enclosediitoif;
statement of the workmen is impleadiedvto
It is also necessary to observe “that since the ‘rnat[te«r,is .beingf
remitted to the Labour the of the
parties are kept open i–.t.§’)”:’«be ._the Tribunal and
opportunity shall be to adduce
additional ey;.§ieif;;;.§gr.fiayeyq_s¢i it is also necessary
to hold ‘ are employed or
reinst;_:aiititi’i€iii_i services shall not be
terminatedtill adjudicated on merits by
the :.La.bourliC,oAu1’et’i’ as’ held by the learned Single Judge.
ii i. Aci’cordi.n=gly’,..gwe holidiithat the order passed by the learned
Single the impugned award passed by the
Labiiur Hubli in Ref.No.2 of 1998 dated 25.04.1999
and remitting the matter to the Labour Court for fresh
“=ii_dispio;sal in accordance with law is justified and for the
reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge and does not
call for interference in this appeal. All the contentions are
kept open and the Labour Court shall decide the points
referred to it without being influenced by the observation
\…/\