IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.NO.10485/2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGANATHA ENTERPRISES, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.SHASHIKANTH, M.D. …..PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.B.SANGAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY -01.
2. COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560076.
3. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560076. …RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 23/07/2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order/letter dated 23/07/2019(Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is carrying business of providing man power, such as security services, scavengers to different oranisation. Petitioner has participated in the tender process and is a successful bidder for providing Group –C and Group- D employees to Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya. As per the work order dated 22/02/2017, petitioner has provided 124 employees under Group-C and Group-D category to the said organisation. It is stated that during the subsistence of the contract period, a complaint was filed by some of the workers/security persons who were provided to the institute by some other agency. Even though there was no any complaint by Group-C and Group-D employees, petitioner was included in the same by alleging offence under Section 22(2) and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Thereafter, without notice to the petitioner and without providing an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order/letter at Annexure-A has been issued by respondent No.1. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is discharging his service in the field more than 15 years without any allegation or complaint. However, in view of the compliant made by some unknown persons, a proceeding was initiated against him that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard and that the same is in violation of principle of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained. He sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate has sought to justify the impugned letter/order. He contended that on the basis of complainant received by some workers, the impugned letter/order has been issued.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is doing business of providing manpower, security services in the category of Group- C and Group-D employees. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has entered into contract of providing man power and security services of Group- C and Group-D employees and that the authorities has also issued satisfactory certificate to the service rendered by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint made by some of the security persons, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order/letter without issuing notice to the petitioner. On a careful perusal of Annexure-A, it would clearly indicate that the State Government cannot restrain the petitioner from entering into contract which is nothing but block listing the petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order passed by the State Government is not a speaking order and absolutely there are no reasons assigned which cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 23/07/2018 at Annexure- A is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents-authorities to initiate action against the petitioner if any, only after giving an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
All contentions of both the parties are left open.
Msu SD/- JUDGE