VENKATESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the endorsements dtd. 18/3/2019 issued by respondent No. 6 vide Annexure-K, K1 to K19 and endorsement dtd. 26/3/2019 vide Annexure-K20 wherein the request of the petitioners to abolish the contract labour system and equal pay for equal work has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they were working as contract labourers in respondent Nos. 6 and 8, Municipal Counsel in the Department of Water Supply and Maintenance as water supply helpers for more than ten years. Since the salary paid to the petitioners was less than the salary paid to the regular employees of respondent Nos. 6 and 8, they filed representations dtd. 2/4/2018 to the respondents seeking for abolition of contract labour system as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act) and pay equal wages to the petitioners on par with the regular employees. Since their representations were not considered, they approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 52137-151/2017 dtd. 28/2/2018 and in W.P. Nos. 5421-43/2018 and 10296-10300/2018 dtd. 7/3/2018. This Court has disposed of the said writ petitions and directed the competent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant to that, the respondent No. 6 has issued the impugned endorsements vide Annexure-K, K1 to K19 and respondent No. 8 has issued impugned endorsement vide Annexure-K20. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have given representations dtd. 2/4/2018 seeking for abolition of contract labour system since the same is prohibited under Sec. 10(1) of the Act and requested them to pay equal wages to the petitioners on par with the regular employees of respondent Nos. 6 and 8. Inspite of the directions issued by this Court to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law, the impugned endorsements have been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The same is issued contrary to the directions of this Court. The impugned endorsements are issued without application of mind. The request of the petitioners for abolition of contract labour system was not considered by the respondents. The impugned endorsements are not speaking orders. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned endorsements.