- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 15409 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: VINOD WILFRED MASCARENHAS, S/O ALBERT MASCARENHAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CAPUCIN KRISHIK SEVA KENDRA, VIMUKTI KOYYUR CROSS, LAILA,BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA – 574 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKASA SOUDHA,BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (KARNATAKA), KARMIKA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,BENGALURU – 560 029. 3. KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCITON WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY,KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND, DAIRY CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 029. 4. LABOUR OFFICER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIVISION-1, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT,PAUDA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, SHARBATH KATRI ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PEINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI.PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO KA.A MAN. /MAHAKA-20/2022-23 DATED 13/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIVISION-1 R4 (PLACE AS ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 13.07.2022 and also to quash Clause No.6 in Circular dated 15.07.2014 issued by the Labour Commissioner. The petitioner has also sought direction to quash the communication dated 16.07.2018 which insists for the marriage certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar to claim benefit under building and other construction workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996') and Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Karnataka) Rules, 2006 (for short 'Rules, 2006'). 2. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents that marriage certificate issued under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 be accepted for all statutory benefits and the Schemes under the aforementioned Act, 1996 and Rules, 2006. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Marriage Registrar for registering Christian marriages in Dakshina Kannada District under Section 7 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act of 1872'). The appointment order was issued on 17.10.2020. The petitioner has registered marriage of one Janet Serrao and Vivian Norbert Pinto. The marriage was registered on 03.03.2022. 4. Admittedly, John Serrao who is the father of Janet Serrao moved an application under Rule 49 of Rules, 2006. Under such Rule, the applicant is required to furnish the marriage certificate. John Serrao when the marriage certificate was submitted along with the application by fourth respondent refused to accept the application on the premise that the marriage certificate is not issued by the Registrar/ Sub-Registrar. 5. Fourth respondent took a stand that the application under Rule 49 of Rules, 2006 should be accompanied with the marriage certificate issued by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 Sub-Registrar. The petitioner came to know about this and issued a notice to the Labour Inspector, Belthangady to recognize the certificate issued by him. However, in terms of the impugned endorsement dated 13.07.2022, fourth respondent refused the recognized certificate issued by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this petition is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Marriage Registrar vide Government Notification dated 17.10.2020 marked at Annexure-A. This Notification has a statutory support in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1872. Since the petitioner is appointed as a Marriage Registrar, the certificate issued by him in exercise of the power vested on him is duly appointed Marriage Registrar to recognize as valued marriage certificate. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that though the application filed by John Serrao was refused by fourth respondent, though by said rejection, the petitioner is not personally aggrieved, the petitioner's grievance is that in case, the marriage certificates registered by him are not recognized by the concerned department on the premise that the said marriage certificate is not valid, the persons who seeks to register their marriages will not approach him for registration which in turn will affect his right to carry on his profession as Marriage Registrar. Thus, it is urged that the petition is maintainable for appropriate relief seeking declaration that the petitioner's appointment as a Marriage Registrar is valid and the certificate issued by the petitioner registering the marriages of the persons governed by the Act of 1872, are valid certificates. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that 3rd respondent has never stated that the certificate is not valid, however, it is the contention of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 3rd respondent that under the Rules 2006, the only certificates issued by the sub-registrar are valid and the petitioner is not aggrieved person in terms of impugned endorsement and the petitioner's right to register the marriage certificate is not taken away. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 would also support the contention of 3rd respondent. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 2. Section 7 of the Act, 1872 reads as under: "7. Marriage Registrars.—The State Government may appoint one or more Christians, either by name or as holding any office for the time being, to be the Marriage Registrar or Marriage Registrars for any district subject to its administration." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 12. Section 7 of the Act of 1872 empowers the State Government to appoint a person who is a Christian as the Marriage Registrar. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Act of 1872, on 17.10.2020 the Government issued a Notification appointing the petitioner as a Marriage Registrar. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner is duly appointed as Marriage Registrar in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Act of 1872. 13. There is no dispute that the Registrar of Marriage appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1872 is empowered to register the Christian Marriages and issue the certificate for having registered the marriages. There is no dispute that marriage of Janet Serrao with Vivian Norbert Pinto was registered by the petitioner. The said certificate is also produced. 14. To avail the benefit under Rules 2006 an application was filed by the father of Janet Serrao and this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 application was not accepted on the premise that Rules 2006 does not enable the authority to accept the certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriage appointed under Section 7 of the Act, 1872, it only mandates the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar. Rule 49(2)(e) of the Rules, 2006 reads as under: 49. Assistance for 1st marriage of the registered building or other construction worker or his/her dependent children.- (1) xxx (2) The amount shall be sanctioned only if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxxx (e) The certificate of registration of marriage obtained from the registrar of marriage shall be produced along with the application. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 15. On reading of the aforementioned Rule, it is noticed that Rule 49 (2) (e) insists for a certificate of Registration of Marriage obtained from the Registrar of Marriage. 16. It is noticed that the contention that the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar has to be issued is raised based on the Circular at Annexure-H dated 15.07.2014. In the said Circular, in clause-(6), it is stated that the marriage certificate has to be issued by the Sub- Registrar. 17. This Court has considered the said Circular. It is noticed that the said Circular is apparently contrary to the requirement of Rule 49(2)(e) of Rules, 2006 which only mandates the certificate issued by the Marriage Registrar. Since the petitioner is duly appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1872 as a Marriage Registrar, the certificate issued by the petitioner is valid for the purpose of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 establishing the marriage and the registration of marriage under the Act of 1872. 18. This being the position, fourth respondent would not have refused the application on the premise that the application is not accompanied by the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar. The certificate issued by the petitioner certifying the marriage under the Act of 1872 is a valid certificate in support of proof of marriage. 19. Under these circumstances, the petition has to be allowed. 20. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the rejection, it is required to be noticed that in case, the contention of 3rd respondent is accepted, the persons who seek to get their marriage registered under the petitioner will be dissuaded from getting it registered under the Act of 1872 which in turn affect the petitioner's right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and also - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 the right conferred under the certificate issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1872. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Clause - (6) of the Circular dated 15.07.2014, insisting for marriage certificate from the Sub-Registrar should be read as 'one recognizing the certificate issued by the Marriage Registrar appointed under Section 7 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 as well, in addition to the Marriage Certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar'. (iii) Clause No.4 in the communication dated 16.07.2018 be read as the Marriage Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar as well as the Marriage Certificate issued under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. (iv) Endorsement dated 13.07.2022 at Annexure - F is quashed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 (v) The respondents are directed to accept the valid marriage certificate issued by the Vinod Wilfred Mascarenhas in exercise of the power conferred under the Notification dated 17.10.2020 as valid proof of the marriage certified in the said certificate. (vi) Though the applicant - John Serrao whose application is rejected is not before this Court, the applicant - John Serrao is permitted to file a fresh application by enclosing the certificate issued by the Vinod Wilfred Mascarenhas and the said application shall be considered in accordance with law without insisting for certificate to be issued by the Sub-Registrar. Such exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of the fresh application to be filed by John Serrao. (vii) The earlier order dismissing the application of John Serrao shall not come in the way of considering the fresh application on merits, if filed by John Serrao. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24767 WP No. 15409 of 2023 Pending I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15