Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
Sri Bhagwan Das, S/o Sesappa - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4478 of 2022 (S-REG)
Decided on : 17-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent:SMT. B.P.RADHA., SRI. HAREESH T.BHANDARY, SMT. SAHANA., ADVOCATE
Contract employees engaged in essential services may claim regularization after long-term service despite initial contract conditions, as their employment is deemed necessary and permanent under municipal law.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10 - Service regularization - Petitioners, working as contract employees for 28 years in municipal water supply, sought regularization based on compliance with the Umadevi judgment. The Deputy Commissioner denied this, citing non-compliance with established criteria. The Court found that the nature of work was permanent and continuous, aligning with the necessity for employment. (Paras 10, 24, 39)
(B) Employment Rights - The judiciary's role in recognizing exploitative contract arrangements and ensuring fair employment practices is crucial, particularly in public sector. (Paras 26, 27, 41)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, engaged in essential water supply duties for decades, were excluded from regularization despite fulfilling necessary conditions, leading to contention regarding labor rights.
Findings of Court:
Regularization was mandated based on the long-drawn employment and recognition of essential service roles, directing the Deputy Commissioner to comply within 60 days.
Issues: The verification of the petitioners' services' regularization under the authority provided by previous court rulings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continued service, despite contract labor abolition, connects petitioners to regular employment eligibility, rejecting unnecessary barriers to recognition.
Result: Denial of regularization set aside; order for immediate compliance issued.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners have been working for 28 years as contract employees. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. the petitioners sought regularization based on their long service. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. the court emphasized the misapplication of the umadevi judgment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. the court directed the deputy commissioner to regularize the petitioners' services. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
ORDER :
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
I. PRAYERS SOUGHT
The petitioners who are rendering service to the Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, through a contract have sought for the following reliefs:-
(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 Others , [(2006) 4 SCC 1] [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 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 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').
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 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 th
