The petitioner, a daily wager who retired from service

on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020 is

before this Court questioning the correctness and legality

of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Karnataka

State

Administrative

Tribunal,

Belagavi

(for

short,

'Tribunal') in Application No.10302/2023, by which, the

petitioner's request to quash the endorsement dated

17.10.2020 refusing to extend the benefits under the

Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for

short, 'Act of 2012') for regularization of his service is

rejected.

- 3 -

2.

Heard Sri Nandish Patil, leaned counsel for

petitioner and Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government

Advocate for respondents.

3.

Leaned counsel for petitioner would submit

that the petitioner was appointed on 06.06.1986 as Bill

Collector in R.N. Shetty Stadium, Dharwad, which comes

under the supervision of Director of Youth Service and

Sports, respondent No.3 herein and on 23.10.1986, 4th

respondent

absorbed

the

service

of

petitioner

on

temporary basis and addressed a letter to the third

respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioner

on permanent basis. The petitioner continued on daily

wage basis and he retired on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.08.2020. In the meanwhile, the

Government refused to extend the benefit of Act of 2012

and also rejected his request for regularization. The

petitioner was before the Tribunal challenging the said

endorsement dated 17.10.2020 at Annexure-A1. The

- 4 -

Tribunal by impugned order dated 23.12.2022 rejected the

request of the petitioner for regularization of his service

and while dismissing the application observed that the

benefit of Act of 2012 have already been granted to the

petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled to any further

benefits. Learned counsel referring to the provisions

under Act of 2012 as well as to Annexure-A-1 Government

order dated 17.10.2020 would submit that the petitioner is

a daily wager and he is entitled for benefits under Act of

2012. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner

fulfils the conditions laid down in Act of 2012 and as such,

he would be entitled for pay, leave and terminal benefits in

accordance with the Act of 2012. Accordingly, he prays

for allowing the writ petition.

4.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for

respondents, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner

cannot be considered as daily wager since he was

appointed on monthly rated basis. Referring to the

impugned endorsement dated 17.10.2022, he would

- 5 -

submit that the second respondent/Commissioner has

rightly rejected the petitioner's request for regularization

as well as to extend the benefits under the Act of 2012.

He would further submit that there is difference between

daily wager and a person working on monthly rated basis

since the petitioner is not a daily wager but he is an

employee on monthly rated basis, he would not fulfill the

criteria laid down under Section 2(a) and Section 3 of the

Act of 2012. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

5.

Having

heard

the

learned

counsel

for

petitioner

and

learned

Government

Advocate

for

respondents and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we

are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be

entitled for the benefit under the Act of 2012 for the

following reasons:

6.

The State Government introduced the Act of

2012 to provide for welfare of the daily wage employees

working for more than ten years in various establishments

- 6 -

and to give them minimum security of tenure, better wage

and certain social security on termination from long public

service and for the matters connected therewith or

incidental thereto.

7.

Section

2(a)

defines

the

'daily

wage

employee', which reads as follows:

2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context

otherwise requires,-

(a).

"The daily wage employee" means an

employee engaged by the Government or local

bodies on daily wage basis, who has worked and

completed not less