MARUTHI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had approached this Court calling in question the endorsement dtd. 15/5/2023 issued by respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council, Ramadurg and seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to regularize their services as Street Light Operators and to extend the consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioners state that they have been engaged for maintaining street lights in about 27 wards falling within the jurisdiction of Town Municipal Council, Ramadurg and the work of maintaining street lights is a continuous and a perennial public duty of the Municipal Council. It is averred that though contractors were shown to be engaged, the petitioners were, for all practical purposes working under the control and supervision of respondent No.2 and the contractors were only named lenders. According to the petitioners, a communication issued in the year 2014 by respondent No.2 to the Project Director, District Development Cell, discloses the name of several workers including the petitioners, indicating that they have been working from the year 2014. It is further stated that from 2021 onwards, they were not paid wages and that the contractor to whom the work was entrusted did not possess a valid licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short) nor complied with the statutory requirements such as ESI and PF. The petitioners submitted several representations seeking payment of wages, statutory benefits and continuation of service. Earlier this Court in W.P.No.104580/2021 directed the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations dtd. 14/3/2023 seeking regularization of their services. Respondent No.2 issued impugned endorsement dtd. 15/5/2023, stating that there are no rules for regularization.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the work discharged by them is perennial in nature and that engaging contract labour for such work is only to avoid the relationship of employer and employee. It is contended that since the contractor failed to discharge statutory obligations, respondent No.2 being a principal employer is entitled for payment of wages and statutory benefits. It is further contended that the petitioners having worked continuously for several years, they are entitled for regularization, and the impugned endorsement rejecting the claim is arbitrary and illegal.