K. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. KEMPANNA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF POWER AND ENERGY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS had engaged a service of gangmen. The employees union raised demands for absorption of gangmen as Probationary Mazdoors. A settlement as per Annexure -F was arrived at between the Management and the employees union, in terms of which, the respondents/Management agreed to absorb 7528 working gangmen as per the agreed terms and conditions.

(2.) INDISPUTEDLY , petitioner was engaged as a gangman on 30.01.1999. Concededly, petitioner was very much part of the settlement that was entered into between the employees union and the respondent -Management. The Management, as per Annexure -F/Memorandum of Settlement, agreed to convert the gangmen who were presently working continuously and completed 6 years of continuous service as on 01.04.2003 (except where the Management has effected break in service) as probationary mazdoors in a phased manner every year on 1st of April starting from 01.04.2003 subject to seniority and suitability as per the probationary mazdoors regulations as amended. The petitioner having not been absorbed, submitted representation to the respondents seeking absorption. The petitioner along with others, filed W.P. Nos. 2288 -97/2010, which was disposed on 11.02.2010 (Annexure -H), directing the respondents 3 to 5 therein to pass orders on the representations in accordance with law. The representation having been considered, the respondents have issued the endorsement dated 19.04.2010, as at Annexure -A. Seeking quashing of the said endorsement and to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to implement the memorandum of settlement dated 03.06.2004, as at Annexure -P and grant the benefit of continuity of service, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI V.N. Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the action of the 5th respondent is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Learned counsel submitted that, the endorsements as at Annexures A and J are contrary to each other, since the case of one Ramesh was considered and sent for approval to the Government, which course of action was not adopted in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that, the petitioner having rendered continuous service is entitled to the benefit of settlement between the Management and the employees union, as at Annexure -F and there being arbitrariness on the part of respondents 3 to 5, the prayers in the writ petition may be granted.