Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhagwan Das vs The Deputy Commissioner on 17 June, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
®
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2022 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BHAGWAN DAS
S/O SESAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O VISHALAKSHI COMPOUND,
PEDAMALE HOUSE PEDAMLE POST
MANGALORE-575029
DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT
2. SRI RAMESH, S/O LATE BRAHMDAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
C/O SHANKAR, DRIVER KANA
SURATHKAL-575014
3. SRI K N PRAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANA BANJERA
Digitally
signed by AGED 44 YEARS,
VIDYA G R C/O B GANGADHARA, NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES
Location: BANTWAL-574219
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SRI VAMAN
S/O LATE SHIPOJARI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SONABA SADANA MAILA GUDDE
VIDYANAGAR, PANJIMOGAS POST
MANGALORE-575013
5. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O THOMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NADYAPADAVU POST AND VILLAGE
MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. SRI K SUDHEER, S/O K CHANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
M K B SHETTY COMPOUND,
ALAPE KAMBADI, ALAPE
MANGALORE-575008
7. SRI SHAJIL KUMAR
S/O RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
M S B PRASAD NEAR MUTHAPPAGUDI
SHAKTHINAGAR, MANGALORE-575016
8. SRI JAGADEESH
S/O BOOBA MESTRY
AGED ABOUT 49Y EARS,
GANGANIVASU KOTUKANI ROAD
BEJAI POST, MANGALORE-575004
9. SRI J MOHAN DAS
S/O J VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DR VISHWANATH SUVARNA COMPOUND
JEPPU MAHAKAL IPODAPU
MANGALORE-575002
10 . SRI PRAVEEN
S/O LATE SEEN KUKYAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SEENA NILAYA, DEREBAIL KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
11 . SRI SANTOSH
S/O SUBBA SALYAM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOOKAPATNA BANGARE
MANGALORE-575003
12. SRI PRAVEEN SHETTY
S/O MARAPPA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
THANTHI COMPOUND
BALEBAIL KAPILAD BEJAI
MANGALORE-575004
13. SRI K GOVIND
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KAVOORU MILLAKDU 4TH MAIN,
KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE-575015
14. SRI HARIYAPPA
S/O LATE ALITHAPPA GAIGA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SANJAYANAGAR SHAKTHINAGAR
MANGALORE-575016
15. SRI BABU BANJER
S/O LAGE ANGARA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOLOOR KALLISHWAR COMPOUND PARAPPU
MANGALORE-575003
16. SRI PURUSHOTHAM KOTYAN
S/O DOOMPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
DEREBAILU COMPOUND
LOWER KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575001
MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MANGALORE-575003
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
3. SRI LINGEGOWDA
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MANGALURU MUNICIPAL CITY CORPORATION
MANGALORE-575003
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SMART CITY MANGALURU CITY MUNICIPAL
MANGALORE-575003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. HAREESH T.BHANDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SMT. SAHANA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION LETTER BEARING
No.EST(1)/CR53/2015-16 DATED:05.12.2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-W ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 21.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CAV ORDER
I. PRAYERS SOUGHT:
The petitioners who are rendering service to the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, through a contract have
sought for the following reliefs:-
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
(i) Setting aside the communication letter
bearing No.EST(1)/CR/53/2015-16 dated
05.12.2019 at Annexure-W, refusing to
recommend case of the petitioners for
regularisation of their service while recording a
finding that the petitioners were not in
compliance with the tests laid down in the
judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and
Others1 [Umadevi];
(ii) Petitioners have sought to set aside order
of the Deputy Commissioner bearing No.
DKDC/DUDC/MUN(3)/CR234/2017 C.No.27060
at Annexure-X dated 12.12.2019, whereby, the
Deputy Commissioner had reiterated the stand
of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike and has issued
1
(2006) 4 SCC 1
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
an endorsement reiterating that petitioners
service could not be regularised.
(iii) Petitioners have sought for issuance of
writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to
regularise and absorb services of the petitioners
in accordance with the order bearing
No.MUN(3)/ESTCR/75/2015-16 C.No. 163875
dated 28.07.2016 at Annexure K which was an
order to regularise services of 79 employees of
the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike whose case
was similar to that of the petitioners.
II. BRIEF FACTS :
2. The petitioners claim to have been working for
the respondent No.2 – Mangalore Mahanagara Palike as
contract employees, working as valvemen and pump-
operators for about 28 years. It is asserted that they have
been performing work of a regular employee of the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike which had availed services
of the petitioners through contractors, despite having
vacant posts.
3. The petitioners had made out a representation
to the respondent No.2 – Palike which was taken note of
and a communication forwarded to the Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development, recommending
regularisation of services of the petitioner in terms of
Annexure – A dated 28.11.2014.
4. In terms of the office note at Annexure-C dated
22.01.2016, the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike had
observed that the petitioners numbering 16 were working
on contract basis from a long period of time. The
Government of Karnataka on 02.11.2006 had abolished
the contract labour in the Water Supply Department of the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike after taking note of the
report of the Karnataka State Labour Advisory Board in
terms of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Act’).
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
5. It was however observed that except the
attendance registers for the year 1991 and 1992,
remaining documents were not available. However, it was
specifically observed that the 16 workmen named in the
table were still working on contract basis for the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike.
6. In terms of Annexure-D dated 01.03.2016, the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike had addressed a
communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina
Kannada District, Mangalore, furnishing the details of each
of the 16 petitioners along with a checklist for further
action.
7. In terms of Annexure-J, meeting was held
under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner
regarding the works of the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike.
It was noted that the recruitment committee headed by
the Deputy Commissioner in the respective districts were
granted permission for filling up of the posts. The said
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
proceedings also noted the existing vacancy of 89 posts as
regards valvemen. It was further resolved that action to
be taken for regularisation in terms of the Judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in Umadevi (supra) as regards
those employees appointed after 01.01.1986 and who had
completed ten years as on 10.04.2006.
8. The Deputy Commissioner on 28.07.2016 had
resolved to regularise service of 79 employees who had
fulfilled four conditions laid down in Umadevi (supra). In
terms of Annexure-M, dated 06.10.2016, there was a
revised list which recorded a finding that only 62
employees had fulfilled the four conditions while excluding
the case of the petitioners on the ground that the details
of the 16 valvemen (i.e., petitioners) were not available.
Accordingly, details of only 54 employees excluding the
petitioners were sent to the Deputy Commissioner.
9. The representations of the petitioners to extend
the benefits of regularisation on the principle of parity was
turned down by the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike in terms
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
of proceedings at Annexure-W, which is the
communication by the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike to
the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
accepted such recommendation and issued an
endorsement at Annexure-X declining to regularise their
services.
III. ANALYSIS:
10. The petitioners have contended that the
practice of engagement of labour by way of contract by
the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike was protested by the
staff and the Municipal Staff Union represented by its
President had approached the High Court in W.P. No.4349
& 4461-4485/1997 which came to be disposed off on
12.01.2000 directing the Labour Commissioner to issue
notice regarding abolition of contract labour and submit
report to Government, thereafter, to pass appropriate
orders regarding abolition of contract labourers in
accordance with the Act.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
11. Subsequently, the petitioners themselves in
W.P. No.42637-42652/2017 had filed a writ petition
seeking regularisation and the learned Single Judge
disposed off the said writ petition on 21.06.2018 with a
direction to the Commissioner of the Municipal
Corporation, Mangalore, to furnish necessary details of the
petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision.
12. Pursuant to Court directions, a sub-committee
was formed to look into the question of abolition of
contract work in the City Corporation of Mangalore and
other Corporations relating to the distribution of water
supply.
13. As per the report titled ‘Report on Abolition of
Contract Labour in Water Supply Works of Mangalore,
Gulbarga, Mysore, Hubli – Dharwad and Belgaum
Corporations’ dated 18.11.2003, recommendation was
made for abolition of contract labour.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
14. The observation as regards Mangalore City
Corporation which would be of immediate relevance is as
follows:
“2. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
In the case of Mangalore, Mr. J. T. Jinkalappa, Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Hassan, has already prepared a well
studied report which is enclosed herewith (Document 12 &
13). There are 176 contract workers in Mangalore. The
Municipal Corporation has not registered their establishment
under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970. It is found that the 6 contractors at Mangalore have
filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Mangalore, for obtaining the license under Section 12 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Hence,
there are no licenses held by the contractors. Therefore, the
contract workers are to be treated as workers of the Municipal
Corporation itself. The dispute regarding the regularisation of
these workmen are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Writ Petitions 4349 & 4461 to 4486/1997.
….The committee found that the water supply by the
Municipal Corporation is of perennial nature and it is sufficient
to employ sufficient number of permanent workers in water
supply directly. The system of contract is sham to cover up
the problem arising out of the Government’s general policy of
stoppage or recruitment. In view of the mandatory provision
of Section 87 [j] in the Municipal Corporation Act, it is their
business to provide water supply to the citizens and there is
no justification for employing contract workers other than to
meet the arbitrary direction by stoppage of recruitment.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
Further, it is noteworthy that the distribution of water
supply is the core activity of the Municipal Corporation and
not a peripheral activity, which can be contractualised.”
15. Subsequently, there was a report on contract
labour system in Water Supply Department of Mangalore
City Corporation, Mangalore, submitted by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Hassan Region, enclosed along with
a memo dated 18.12.2024 filed before the Court. The
observations and the conclusion of the said report
recommending for abolition of contract labour system are
at page Nos. 52 to 54.
The findings in the report under the caption
‘observations’ which are of immediate relevance are as
follows:
“1. The process and the operations in water supply
department are permanent in nature except the construction
of new tanks, laying of new pipelines and drilling of new
borewells.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
2. The water supply, management and
maintenance of water works is of permanent and perennial in
nature.
3. The water supply, management and
maintenance of water works entrusted to the contract
workmen are of perennial and permanent nature of work.
4. Regular workmen / employees and contract
workmen are performing same and similar kind of work.
5. The work being done by the contract workmen
are of whole time throughout the year.
6. The supply of water, management and
maintenance of water works requires all time supervision and
definite employment of manpower is very essential
throughout the day and 365 days a year.”
The findings in the report under the caption
‘conclusion’ reads as follows:
“In view of the above, Employment of Contract workmen in
water supply department of Mangalore City Corporation,
Mangalore, attracts Section 10 of the Contract Labour
Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970. The employment of
contract workmen in water supply department of the above
said Corporation is contrary to the Section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and it requires
abolition of Contract Labour system in the above department.”
16. The list of workmen at Annexure-A to the said
report consisted of 150 workmen excluding the petitioners.
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
17. Upon a representation of the petitioners that
their names were left out in “Report on Abolition of
Contract Labour in Water Supply Works of Mangalore,
Gulbarga, Mysore, Hubli – Dharwad and Belgaum
Corporations”, a fresh report was prepared by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Hassan Region, Hassan, which
reads as “Additional Report on Contract Labour System in
Water Supply Department of Mangalore City Corporation,
Mangalore”, which includes the names of the petitioners.
The said report is produced at Document No.13 of the
memo dated 18.12.2024.
18. On 02.11.2006 order was passed by the
Government under Section 10 of the Act abolishing
practice of engagement of contract labour in the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike as regards employees in the
Water Supply Department on the basis of the reports
submitted and recommendations made thereon.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
19. While the factual narrations which are not in
dispute are that the practice of abolition of contract labour
was taken note of and order passed on 02.11.2006, it is
not in dispute that even subsequent thereto till date
petitioners have continued to render service to the
Mangalore Mahanagara Palike through a contractor.
20. It is to be noticed that by virtue of the
additional report on contract labour, the petitioners’
names in effect have been included in the list of
employees whose engagement through the contractor
was found to be in contravention to the provision of the
Act. It could be concluded that the petitioners could also
be treated to be the employees whose employment
through a contractor stood abolished by order dated
02.11.2006.
21. Subsequent to the year 2006, the petitioners
are stated to have rendered service through an
outsource agency to the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
as admitted by the said authority in its statement of
objections filed before this Court dated 19.08.2024.
22. The petitioners now having approached this
Court for the relief extracted supra are seeking for
regularization of their services by reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra).
23. It is to be noticed that the petitioners having
rendered service to a statutory authority through a
contractor which is referred to as an out-source agency
till date, are seeking for appropriate relief on the basis
of Umadevi (supra) which law is applicable to
employees working under “State Agency”.
24. In the event the petitioners’ services were
discharged by virtue of the order passed under Section
10 of the Act and had ceased to work, perhaps the right
to regularization would be a difficult right to assert.
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
25. In the present case, the petitioners have
continued to render service to the Mangalore
Mahanagara Palike through an out-source agency which
is clear on a reading of statement of objections of the
respondent No.2 – Authority (see Para No.7).
26. The petitioners request for regularization is
made on the basis of the continued rendering of services
to the Municipal Authority despite order of abolition of
contract labour on 02.11.2006.
27. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Steel
Authority of India Ltd., and others v. National
Union Waterfront Workers and others2[SAIL],
would indicate that mere order passed under section 10
of the Act could not have the effect of treating such
employees whose engagement by the contractor was
found to be offending the Act, as employees whose
services rendered previously could not be taken note of.
The abolition of contract labour puts an end to
2
(2001) 7 SCC 1
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
exploitation by the principal employer. Where the
employer is State itself, if the service rendered till such
date and subsequently, maybe taken note of to establish
a link between the principal employer and the employee
in the particular factual matrix as in the present case,
appropriate relief may be moulded.
28. It must be noticed that –
(i) the services rendered by the petitioners
through a contractor were relating to the water
supply department. The report of abolition of
contract labour which was acted upon by the
Government categorically states the stand of the
Municipal Authority that the contract workmen
were working against permanent vacancies.
(ii) The report further observes the stand of
Municipal Authority that in light of ban on
recruitment by government, in order to ensure
continued supply of water, the services of contract
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
workmen was being obtained by engagement of a
contractor.
(iii) It is also the stand of the Municipal Authority
as recorded in the report that engagement of such
manpower was essential and without such
manpower, the water supply operations could not
be conducted.
(iv) The report categorically observes that “the
principal employer has not obtained certificate of
registration under section 7 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act”.
(v) The report further indicated that the principal
employer and the contractor have not maintained
any of the registers and records as required under
the provisions of the Act.
(vi) The report observes that there are vouchers
evidencing payments once a month through Junior
Engineers of the Corporation.
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
(vii) It is specifically observed that the work
carried out by contract workmen are of permanent
and perennial in nature and that the work
entrusted to the contractor was an “essential
service” in terms of category in schedule II of the
Act.
29. It is in the context of such finding, in the
report that order came to be passed by the Government
under section 10 of the Act.
30. The continuance of rendering of service by
the petitioner is through an out-source agency
subsequent to the order passed under Section 10 of the
Act.
31. The representation of the petitioner for
regularization as been forwarded by the Municipal
Authority to the Deputy Commissioner who was
authorized to take a decision regarding regularization
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
through a communication dated 05.12.2019 at
Annexure-W.
32. The recommendation to the Deputy
Commissioner by the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike
dated 05.12.2019, is extracted below:-
"ಆದ ೆ ೕ ಭಗ ಾ zÁ¸ï ಮತು ಇತರ ಒಟು 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರ
ನಗೂ ಯ !ೇ ೆಸ ಸು#ದ$ ಬ&ೆ' ಸಂಬಂ()ದ *ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾಜು ,-ಾಗದ
.ಾಯ/0ಾಲಕ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು ಉ5ೇಖ(8) ರಂ7ೆ *ೕ8ದ ವರ ಯ ಮಂಗಳ;ರು
ಮ<ಾನಗರ0ಾ .ೆಯ *ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾಜು *ವ/ಹ>ೆಯನು? <ೊರಗುwÛ&ೆಯ
*ವ/@ಸು#ದು$ *ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾಜು *ವ/ಹ>ೆ&ೆ AiÀiÁವABೇ ನಗೂ ೌಕರರನು?
ೇCಸ5ಾDರುವA ಲªÉAzÀÄ #E)ರುವರು
ೕ ಭಗ ಾ zÁ¸ï ಮತು ಇತರ ಒಟು 16 ಮಂ &ೌರ ಾ*Fತ ಘನ
ಸHೕðಚJ ಾKLಾಲಯದ ¹«¯ï ಆMೕಲು ಸಂNೆK:3595-3612/1999 gÀ ಾಂಕ
16-04-2006 ರಂದು *ೕ8ದ #ೕM/ನ 4 ಷರತುಗ½UÉ ಬದP ಾDರುವA ಲ. ,ವರ ಈ
.ೆಳDನಂ# ೆ.
1 ನಗೂ Sೕ5ೆ ೇಮ.ಾ# *ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾW&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ()ದ ‘8’
Tಾ8Bಾಗ ಸದU ೌಕರU&ೆ ಆ ಗುಂMನ ಹುBೆ$ಗE&ೆ 1971 ರ ವೃಂದ
ಹುBೆ$ಯ ೇಮ.ಾ#&ೆ ಇರುವ ಸೂಕ ಮತು ೇಮ.ಾ# *ಯಮದ
,BಾKಹ/7ೆ ಇರVೇಕು. ,BಾKಹ/7ೆ *ಗ(ಪ8)ಲ. ಅನುಭವ
ಪUಗZಸ5ಾDBೆ. ಆದುದUಂದ ಸ
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ಅನF[ಸುವA ಲ.
2 ಸದU ಹುBೆ$ಯು ಮಂಜೂ ಾದ ಹುBೆ$ 0ಾ .ೆಗಳ 1971 ರ ವೃಂದ ಮತು
ಇರVೇಕು <ಾಗೂ Nಾ ಹುBೆ$ ೇಮ.ಾ# *ಯಮದಂ7ೆ
ಇರVೇಕು. ಮಂಜೂ ಾದ ಒಟು 30 ಪಂಪA
ಅಪ ೇಟ], ಪಂಪA ^ೕನ] ಇ7ಾK
*ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾW&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ()ದ '8'
ಗುಂMನ ಹುBೆ$ಗಳ_
ಮಂಜೂ ಾDರುವAದು.
3 ಸದUಯವರು ಸತತ ಾD 10 ಸ 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು 0ಾ .ೆಯ
ವಷ/ಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? ನಗೂ ಯ
Tಾ8ರVೇಕು. ೇಮಕTಾ8.ೊಂ8ಲ. ಇವರುಗಳ_
ನಗೂ ಯ 10 ವಷ/ಗಳ
!ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸ )ರುವA ಲ.
4 LಾವABೇ ಾKLಾಲಯದ ಸ 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು
ಆBೇಶದ ಅ8ಯ 10 ವಷ/ ನಗೂ ಯ 0ಾ .ೆಯ 10
ಸತತ ಾD .ೆಲಸ Tಾ8ರVಾರದು. ವಷ/ಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸ )ರುವA ಲ.
ಆದದುದUಂದ ೕ ಭಗ ಾ Bಾc ಮತು ಇತರ ಒಟು 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು
&ೌರ ಾ*Fತ ಘನ ಸHೕಚd ಾKLಾಲಯದ Ue ಆMೕಲು ಸಂNೆK:
3595/3612/1999 ರ ಉTಾBೇ, ಮತು ಇತರರ ,ರುದP ಾಂಕ 16-04-
2006 ರಂದು *ೕ8ದ #ೕM/ನ 4 ಷರತುಗಳನು? ಪf ೈ)ಲ ಾದುದUಂದ ಅವರುಗಳ
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
!ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸಕ Tಾ# &ೊEಸಲು ಅ!ಾಧK ೆಂಬುದನು? ತಮi ದLಾಪರ
ಅವ&ಾಹ ೆ&ೆ ತರ5ಾDBೆ.”
33. The formal endorsement of the Deputy
Commissioner at Annexure-X dated 12.12.2019 reads as
follows:
1 ನಗೂ Sೕ5ೆ ೇಮ.ಾ# *ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾW&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ()ದ ‘8’
Tಾ8Bಾಗ ಸದU ೌಕರU&ೆ ಆ ಗುಂMನ ಹುBೆ$ಗE&ೆ 1971 ರ ವೃಂದ
ಹುBೆ$ಯ ೇಮ.ಾ#&ೆ ಇರುವ ಸೂಕ ಮತು ೇಮ.ಾ# *ಯಮದ
,BಾKಹ/7ೆ ಇರVೇಕು. ,BಾKಹ/7ೆ *ಗ(ಪ8)ಲ. ಅನುಭವ
ಪUಗZಸ5ಾDBೆ. ಆದುದUಂದ ಸ
ಷರತು ಅನF[ಸುವA ಲ.
2 ಸದU ಹುBೆ$ಯು ಮಂಜೂ ಾದ ಹುBೆ$ 0ಾ .ೆಗಳ 1971 ರ ವೃಂದ ಮತು
ಇರVೇಕು <ಾಗೂ Nಾ ಹುBೆ$ ೇಮ.ಾ# *ಯಮದಂ7ೆ
ಇರVೇಕು. ಮಂಜೂ ಾದ ಒಟು 30 ಪಂಪA
ಅಪ ೇಟ], ಪಂಪA ^ೕನ] ಇ7ಾK
*ೕರು ಸರಬ ಾW&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ()ದ '8'
ಗುಂMನ ಹುBೆ$ಗಳ_
ಮಂಜೂ ಾDರುವAದು.
3 ಸದUಯವರು ಸತತ ಾD 10 ಸ 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು
ವಷ/ಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? Tಾ8ರVೇಕು. 0ಾ .ೆಯ ನಗೂ ಯ 10
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
ವಷ/ಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸ )ರುವA ಲ.
4 LಾವABೇ ಾKLಾಲಯದ ಆBೇಶದ ಸ 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು
ಅ8ಯ 10 ವಷ/ ಸತತ ಾD ನಗೂ ಯ 0ಾ .ೆಯ 10
.ೆಲಸ Tಾ8ರVಾರದು. ವಷ/ಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸ )ರುವA ಲ.
ಆದುದUಂದ ೕ ಭಗ ಾ Bಾc ಮತು ಇತರರು ಒಟು 16 ಮಂ ೌಕರರು
&ೌರ ಾ*Fತ ಘನ ಸHೕಚJ ಾKLಾಲಯದ ಅMೕಲು ಸಂNೆK: 3595/3612/1999
ರ ಉTಾBೇ, ಮತು ಇತರರ ,ರುದP ಾಂಕ 16-04-2006 ರಂದು *ೕ8ದ
#ೕM/ನ 4 ಪರತುಗಳನು? ಪf ೈ)ಲ ಾದುದUಂದ ಅವರುಗಳ !ೇ ೆಯನು? ಸಕ Tಾ#
&ೊEಸಲು !ಾಧK,ರುವA ಲ ೆಂದು jತ ವರ *ೕ8ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅದರಂತ ಉ5ೇಖ
(1)ರ 0ಾ .ೆಯ ಆಯುಕರ <ೇE.ೆಯನು? ಅನುಸU), ಘನ ಸHೕಚJ ಾKLಾಲಯದ
ಉTಾBೇ, ಪ ಕರಣದ #ೕM/ನ ,()ರುವ 4 ಷರತುಗಳನು? ೕ ಭಗ ಾ Bಾc
ಮತು ಇತರರು ಒಟು 16 ಮಂ ಪಂm ಅಪ ೇಟ] ಮತು ಾ¯ïéಮ ಗಳ_.
ಮಂಗಳ;ರು ಮ<ಾನಗರ0ಾ .ೆ, ಇವರು ಪf ೈಸ ರುವAದUಂದ ಇವರ !ೇ ೆಯನು?
ಸಕ ಮ&ೊEಸಲು !ಾಧK,ರುವA ಲ ೆಂದು ಆBೇ ಸ5ಾDBೆ.”
34. No doubt, in terms of the judgment of the
Apex Court in SAIL (supra), the mere order of
abolishing of Contract Labour would not entitle the
workmen for regularization by deeming them to be
workmen of the principal employer.
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
35. However, the findings in the report3 as
recorded supra would indicate the following:
(i) That the work being rendered though a
contractor to a Municipal Authority to help in its
water supply work was perennial core activity of
the Municipal Authority in terms of schedule II of
the Municipal Authorities Act.
(ii) Arrangement of availing service to fulfill the
service of water supply was arranged through a
contractor as there was a ban on recruitment.
(iii) Admittedly, these contract workmen were
working against sanctioned posts.
36. From the extract of Annexures – W and X
above as regards the four requirements of the Umadevi
(supra), the finding regarding the qualification and
work against sanctioned posts have already been held in
3
REPORT ON ABOLITION ON CONTRACT LABOUR IN WATER SUPPLY WORKS OF
MANGALORE, GULBARGA, MYSORE, HUBLI-DHARWAD AND BELGAUM
CORPORATIONS DATED 18.11.2003.
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
the favour of the petitioner. As regards the point Nos. 3
and 4 extracted supra, there have been negative
findings.
37. The question is as to whether the services
rendered by the workmen through a contractor till
02.11.2006 and the subsequent services rendered to the
Municipal Authority through an outsource agency could
be taken note of for the purpose of considering
regularization of the petitioners services under the
principal employer.
38. This very aspect was considered by the Apex
Court in Shripal & Anr v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad4
[Shripal] and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others5
[Jaggo].
39. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms has
recognized the system of contract labour/ out-sourcing
as methods of avoiding direct recruitment. The relevant
4
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 dt. 31.01.2025
5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
observations of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) are as
follows:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has
led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness
and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
24. The landmark judgment of the United States in
the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation –
97F.3d1187 (9th Cir. 1996) serves as a pertinent example
from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In
this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that
these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were
entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the
practice of hiring temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee
benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
underscores the principle that the nature of the work
performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker,
should determine employment status and the corresponding
rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in
rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational
purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become
a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
xxxx
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.”
The Apex Court has also specifically observed that
the Judgment in Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked
to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees. The
observations at para 26 and 27 reads as follows:
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held
that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for
more than ten years, should be considered for regularization
as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta
to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely
lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to
argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who
have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes
the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.”
40. The same position has been reiterated in
Shripal (supra) at the following paras of the
Judgment:
“11. Furthermore, the Employer’s stance that there
was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly
unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had been
engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer would
have necessarily maintained some form of contract
documentation, license copies, or invoices substantiating the
contractor’s role in hiring, paying, and supervising these
workers. However, no such documents have been placed on
record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that
wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own
Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct
control and supervision over the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks
is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship. Had there
been a legitimate third-party contractor, one would expect to
see details such as tender notices, contract agreements,
attendance records maintained by the contractor, or
testimony from the contractor’s representatives. The absence
of these crucial elements undermines the Employer’s claim of
outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen
were reporting directly to the Horticulture Department
officials, receiving instructions on their duties, and drawing
wages issued under the Municipality’s authority. This pattern
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially
negates the narrative that they were “contractor’s personnel.”
Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out
without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to
notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under
Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on
precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer’s
defense (i.e., lack of an employer-employee relationship) is
not supported by any credible or contemporaneous evidence.
12. The evidence, including documentary material and
undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen
performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer’s
municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks,
horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is
evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based.
Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be
used to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On
the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the
Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these
positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance
on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence
of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,”
the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain
conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a
shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022HC-KAR
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure
to furnish such records–despite directions to do so–allows an
adverse inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual
daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances
where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after
year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor
agreement…”
41. In light of the above, the communications at
Annexures – W and X are partially set aside with further
direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore, to
pass an order of regularization forthwith in light of the
discussions and observations made above.
42. It is clarified that the petitioners would be
entitled only for continuity of service and period served
would be counted for post retiral benefits. The order of
regularization is to take effect from the dates on when
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
they have completed 10 years as listed in annexure to
order of Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-K dated
28.07.2016 which is extracted below as a purpose of
convenience and to avoid ambiguity.
PÀæ.¸À £ËPÀgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° «zÁåºÀðvÉ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° 10 ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÃvÀ£À
A. DzsÁgÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀÆgÉʹzÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹ ±ÉæÃtÂ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ zÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ
¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
¸ÉÃjzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ
1. ²æà ¨sÀUÀªÁ£ï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 6-8-1968 1-1-1988 31-12-1998 01-01-1999 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
zÁ¸ï 14,550
2. ²æà gÀªÉÄÃ±ï ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 1-4-1972 01-05-1990 30-04-2000 01-05-2000 ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 9,600-
D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï 14,550
3. ²æà ¥Àæ«Ãuï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 14-05- 1-1-1991 31-12-2001 01-01-2002 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
1963 14,550
4. ²æà ªÁªÀÄ£À ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 8-12-1965 2-2-1991 01-02-2001 02-02-2001 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
14,550
5. ²æà ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 20-7-1972 8-2-1991 07-02-2001 08-02-2001 ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 9,600-
ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï 14,550
6. ²æà ºÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 13-6-1959 6-8-1991 05-08-2001 06-08-2001 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
14,550
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. ²æà PÉ. ¸ÀÄ¢üÃgï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 24-12-1971 1-9-1991 31-08-2001 01-09-2001 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
14,550
8. ²æà ¨Á§Ä ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 5£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 1-6-1955 25-5-1992 24-05-2002 25-05-2002 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
§AUÉÃgÀ 14,550
(¨Á§Ä)
9. ²æà ±Áf¯ï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 11-1-1972 25-5-1992 24-05-2002 25-05-2002 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
PÀĪÀiÁgï 14,550
10. ²æà dUÀ¢Ã±ï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 5-1-1970 1-1-1993 31-12-2003 01-01-2004 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
PÉ. 14,550
11. ²æà eÉ. ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 8£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 13-5-1965 1-1-1994 31-12-2004 01-01-2005 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
ªÉÆúÀ£ï 14,550
zÁ¸ï
12 ²æà PÉ. ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 5£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 4-6-1955 1-1-1994 31-12-2004 01-01-2005 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
UÉÆëAzÀ 14,550
13. ²æà ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 6£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 16-3-1957 1-2-1994 31-01-2004 01-02-2004 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
¥ÀÄgÀĵÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ 14,550
14. ²æà PÉ.J£ï. ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 19-5-1976 20-05-1994 19-05-2004 20-05-2004 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
¥Àæ«Ãuï 14,550
15. ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 6£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 20-5-1976 21-5-1994 20-05-2004 21-05-2004 ªÁ¯ïé ªÉÄ£ï 9,600-
14,550
16. ²æà ¥Àæ«Ãuï ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 8£Éà vÀgÀUÀw 8-12-1971 1-12-1994 30-11-2004 01-12-2004 ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ 9,600-
±ÉnÖ D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï D¥ÀgÉÃlÀgï 14,550
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20774
WP No. 4478 of 2022
HC-KAR
43. It is needles to state that the order of
regularization is to be passed within 60 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96