V.R. BHOJEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be working as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services and to extend all other consequential monetary benefits and to direct the respondents to pay the additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- from 01.04.2009 in terms of the Government Orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012, Annexures - B and C, and also to direct the respondents to extend the benefit accrued to the petitioner under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Rules, 2012.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as a Graduate Assistant on daily wage basis on 15.06.1984 and the services came to be terminated on 20.08.1988. Therefore, petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 52/1995. The Tribunal, after holding a detailed enquiry, by an award dated 14.12000, set-aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner into original post without back-wages and consequential service benefits. The said order was challenged by the State Government before this Court in W.P. No. 36944/2001. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 11.04.2005, dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. During pendency of the writ petition, on 01.10.2005 respondents paid wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and reinstated the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the State Government passed orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 regarding additional payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the daily wage employees from 01.04.2009. In pursuance of the said Order, on 11.01.2013, the petitioner made a representation to implement the said Government Orders in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of the said representation, the respondents have not considered the representation and have not passed any orders till today. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.