Point of Law : Employer-employee relationship is established and it is only the subterfuge which has been used by Corporation to engage the workmen on contract basis so as so make lesser payment - Subterfuge cannot be allowed to work and the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India [Para 15.10 and 15.11]

ORDER :

1. The petitioner – Tumkur City Corporation is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and award passed in Industrial Dispute.No.251/2002 dated 26.09.2017 on the file of the Court of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, (produced as Annexure-A) and/or

ii. Issue such other writ or order or directions, the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Government of Karnataka by order No.LD 156 IDM 2002 dated 08/15.11.2002 had referred an Industrial Dispute existing between the workmen and Commissioner of the Town Municipal Council, Tumakur under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’, for brevity), for adjudication of the following points:

OTHER LANGUAGE

3. The Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) after hearing the parties allowed the claim petition and answered the points above as under: 3.1. Point No.1 was answered in the negative holding that the Corporation was not justified in not regularizing the services of 250 daily wager workmen.

3.2. Point No.2 was answered in the negative holding that the Corporation was not justified in denying uniforms, chappals and safety devices every year to Pourakarmikas.

3.3. The workman were entitled for regularization of service from the date of their joining.

3.4. The Tribunal directed the Corporation to regularize the services of 250 daily wage workmen (whose names are shown in the annexure to the points for reference) by paying equal pay for equal work from the date of their joining and extend all statutory benefits, emoluments and facilities as available under law as that of permanent workmen in the similar cadre/post.

3.5. The Corporation was directed to make payment of arrears of pay and emoluments to the 250 workmen from the date of joining to the date of regularization.

3.6. The Corporation was directed to provide protection measures to the workmen like providing hand gloves, boots, uniforms, jackets, helmets and other protective instruments while the workmen are carryout out the works like cleaning, scavenging, transportation of garbage and dead animals etc., and other allied nature of work.

3.7. In the event of any of the workman having retired on superannuation, the Corporation was directed to extend all monetary benefits as if he is entitled being in service and pay arrears of each retired workman from the date of their joining till their retirement.

3.8. The arrears were directed to be paid to the workmen within three months from the date of publication of the award, failing which the Corporation was directed to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12%, till realization.

4. It is aggrieved by the same that the Corporation is before this Court challenging the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Facts:

5.1. The Corporation is a statutory body constituted and established under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, prior to being declared as a Corporation, it was a City Municipal Council, Tumkur governed under the provisions of Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964.

5.2. The 1st respondent -Union had submitted a representation to the Government of Karnataka seeking for regularization of 250 Pourakarmikas working with the City Municipal Council for the past 8 to 10 years, on the ground that they were discharging the same duties as that of Pourakarmikas and as such, were entitled to equal pay for equal work with all statutory benefits.

5.3. The dispute having been raised, the Government of Karnataka referred the matter for adjudication to the Tribunal vide Reference dated 08/15.11.2002.

5.4. The Union filed its claim statement before the Tribunal. The Corporation filed its statement of objections.

5.5. Initially the Tribunal was of the view that the 1st respondent -Union was not entitled for any relief and the Reference was answered in t