IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.19068-19080 OF 2015(L-RES) BETWEEN 1. KRISHNA P S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.#509, NEAR MAHESWARAMMA TEMPLE, 1ST MAIN, T DASARAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560073, 2. NAGARAJU S/O LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O VASANTHAKUMAR, NO.121, MAHALAKSHMINAGARA, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073 3. KUMAR S/O SHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.# 251, MARANNA BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, BAGALGUNTE, VIJAYALAKSHMI BADAVANE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073 4. MANJUNATHA M N S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, "SUMUKHA"
5TH CROSS, JNANJYOTHINAGAR, JNANBHARATI POST, BANGALORE-560056 5. KRISHNAPPA S/O CHITTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.# 213, 2ND CROSS, BAGALGUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 6. SHIVANNA B K S/O KADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT # 48 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, BYRAVESHWARANAGAR, LAGGERE, PEENYA POST, BANGALORE-560058, 7. RAMESH S/O JAYARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.322, VINAYAKANAGAR, (KAREKALLU) BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 8. KANAKARAJU S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT # 714, BEHIND NEW MASJID ROAD, DASARAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560057 9. RAJESH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.394, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR, (KAREKALLU), NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560073 10. RAMESH @ RAMA S/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.113, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073 11. KRISHNA P.G. S/O GENDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT # 19, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, KADELE GOWDA BUILDING, NEAR OMKAR RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, VISHWANEEDOM POST, ANJANANAGARA, BANGALORE-560091 12. RUDRESH B S/O BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT # 1102, 6TH CROSS, KALASHREENAGAR, T DASARAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560057 13. GANGARAJU P N S/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT PILLAHALLI, ISHINAKUNTE POST, DASANPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (BY SRI B PAPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE ) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP BANGALORE-560002 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER T DASARAHALLI ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560002 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.30.10.2014 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE, VDIE ANNEX-A AND DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONERS IN THE ORIGINAL PLACE AND PASS AN ORDER FOR CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING ARREARS OF SALARY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners contend that they were ‘D’ Group employees in the erstwhile City Municipal Council of Dasarahalli (CMC). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were employed as electricians in the CMC vide resolution dated 03.05.1997, which was passed by the Chairman of the CMC. It is also contended by the petitioners that they were appointed against clear vacancies in the CMC.
2. It is an admitted fact that Dasarahalli CMC was brought under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in the year 2007. The petitioners contend that some of the employees who were doing similar work made a representation seeking equal pay to equal work and some of such employees services were regularised by the BBMP. It is also contended that some of the employees similarly situated to the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.7289-7291/2011 and connected matters. This Court by order dated 25.11.2011 observed that there was no material particulars pertaining to the services of the petitioners as employees of the erstwhile CMC, Dasarahalli and therefore it is not possible to accept that all the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, unless their credence are established. However, the respondent -BBMP was directed to reconsider the case of each of the petitioners individually and after ascertaining whether the petitioners would indeed be entitled to claim the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the same ought to be given to them including such arrears that they may be entitled to, from the date that CMC, Dasarahalli merged with the BBMP and to extend this benefit at the earliest. The request for regularisation was held to be a matter which requires to be decided by the respondents with reference to the law of the land and therefore, case for regularisation was also directed to be addressed by the respondents.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that from 29.01.2002 they are refused work and therefore the petitioners approached the Government seeking reference. Accordingly, reference was made to the Labour Court and the impugned order has been passed rejecting the reference. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the impugned award, wherein it is stated by the Labour Court that the first party (petitioners herein) has not chosen to cross-examine MW-1. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the testimony of MW-1 one has to conclude that the first party persons are not the employees of the BBMP and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In that event, the parties are not entitled for any relief prayed for. Learned counsel submits that Labour Court has proceeded on these lines and therefore the matters requires to be reconsidered by the Labour Court, while providing an opportunity to the first party to cross-examine MW-1.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however seeks to justify the impugned order stating that the Labour Court has considered all the documents produced by the first party and therefore the award was not passed only on the basis that the first party did not cross-examine MW1.
6. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that the first party before the Labour Court should be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine MW-1 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
7. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2014 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the First Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru to proceed from the stage of cross-examination of MW-1. The first party shall cross-examine MW-1 and without wasting time, the parties shall proceed and Labour Court may pass the award as expeditiously as possible. The Labour Court shall also afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence, if necessary.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the First Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru on 21.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m., without any notice.
9. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Presiding Officer of I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE