- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV REVIEW PETITION NO. 30 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MYSURU CITY CORPORATION NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU 570024 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K C JAGADEESH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO 423, 4TH CROSS, HARIJANA COLONY, YARAGANAHALLI, MYSORE 570011. 2. A NARASIMHA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO 106, C V ROAD, 10TH CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE 570015. 3. KARPA K S/O LATE KUPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO 103, BOGADI ROAD, KUDARE MALLA, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSORE 570006. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 4. PALANI S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO 41, 16TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, P K COLONY NEAR LINGAYAITHA BARIAL VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE 570008. 5. ROSAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO 1277, SILK FACTORY ROAD, MANANDAVADI, NELLURU SHED, MYSORE 570008. 6. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO 27, B BLOCK MCC COLONY KURIMANDI KESARE MYSORE 570007. 7. NINGARAJU S S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 148, NANJANGUD MAIN ROAD SARVODAYA KALYANA KUTTER, MYSORE 570025. 8. NAGARAJA G S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 1293, OPP SILK FACTORY ROAD, MANANDAVADI ROAD, NELLURU SHED, MYSORE 570008. 9. MURUGESH S/O PALANISWAMY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO 79, KUDREMALA, MANASANAGAR, MYSORE 570011. 10. RAJAGOPALA S/O LATE MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO 41/5, 4TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, SEWAGE FORM COLONY, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE - 570008. 11. VENKATESH S/O LATE DODDARANGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO 25 4TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, P K COLONY, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE - 570008. 12. MAHESHA S/O LATE KUSAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO 618-2 DEVANUR, MYSORE - 571119 13. SHRIDHARA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO 23/A, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA MYSORE 570012. 14. G SRINIVASA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO 47 C V ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE 570021. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 15. GANGADHARA H S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 52, 8TH CROSS, C V ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE 570015. 16. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001. 17. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001. 18. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE 560001. 19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU, KRISHNARAJA BOULVARD ROAD, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU 570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R15; SRI. HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R16 TO R19) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 IN WP NO.14510 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 COURT AND DISPOSE THE SAME ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the order passed in W.P.No.14510/2024 dated 06.12.2024. 2. This Court by Order in W.P.No.14510/2024 had allowed the writ petition directing the employer who is the review petitioner in the present case to consider case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others - (2026) 4 SCC 1 and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 and to pass orders with effect from the date from which petitioners had completed 10 years of service. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 3. The parties are referred to by their ranks in the writ proceedings. 4. The primary contention of the review petitioner who was respondent in the writ of proceedings is that the relief granted by the Court was on the basis of parity taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.50876/2019, while however the petitioners in W.P.No.50876/2019 were daily wage workers, whereas the petitioners in the writ proceedings were employed through outsource agency as is evident from the records. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on Annexure-E series of W.P.No.14510/2024 and submits that the name of the employer is shown as 'Patel Construction' and such documents relate to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation e-Pehchan Card, while insofar as some of the employees, the same e-Pehchan cards show the name of the employer as 'Sri. Mahadeshwara Enterprises'. It is further submitted that in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 light of such documents, petitioners being engaged through outsource agency, the Court ought not to have passed order by mere relying on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.50876/2019. 6. The findings of the Court in W.P.No.14510/2024 at Para Nos. 7 to 10 read as follows: "7. Further as per records available insofar as UGD Helper for Corporation similar as that of the respondent which are classified as Group-1 Corporation, number of sanction posts for UGD Helper are 264. This Court while dealing with the employees of the same respondent - Corporation in W.P.No.50876/2019 by a detailed order has ordered as hereunder: "ORDER 1. A writ of mandamus issues to respondent No.5- Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 from the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of service. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 2. The impugned communication dated 27.12.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. In case of the petitioners who have attained the age of superannuation subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, their cases also shall be considered for deemed regularisation and after the order of deemed regularization is passed with respect to such of the petitioners, all the retiral benefits as is available for a regular employee shall be given. 4. In case of such of the petitioners who continued to work in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court, their salaries shall be paid for the services rendered by them pursuant to the interim orders. It is ordered accordingly." 8. It must be noticed that in the present case, admittedly there are posts as referred to above in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the certificates of service at Annexure-'B’ series would indicate that the petitioners are working. If that were to be so, it is to be taken that they were working as regards sanction posts. Needless to state, it is also not in dispute that respondent - Corporation since 2011 has not filled up these - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 posts of UGD Helper by regular recruitment, which assertion of the petitioners is not controverted. 9. In light of the directions given by the Coordinate Bench having been implemented and noticing the date of appointment of the petitioners in terms of the table furnished at Annexure-‘A’, that there were vacant posts as is evidenced from the Cadre and Recruitment Rules which are notified as per Schedule-III, that admittedly the petitioners are working continuous work is not by virtue of any interim orders of the Court, that all the petitioners possess the qualification as on the date of appointment, their request requires to be considered. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief as ordered in W.P.No.50876/2019 and connected matter. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their service in terms of the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi and the Government Order dated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 25.05.2006 and pass orders with effect from the date from which the petitioners completed ten years of service. ii. Necessary orders to be passed by the respondents within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off." 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out as follows: a. that the order passed refers to the submission of the respondents themselves and accordingly respondents are estopped from raising the contention while trying to distinguish the petitioners from the employees who were parties in W.P.No.50876/2019. Para No.5 of the order which records the submission of the respondents reads as follows: "5. Learned counsel for the respondent upon instructions submits that prima-facie the case appears to be covered by the order of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.50876/2019." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 b. that by virtue of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad - Civil Appeal No.8157/2024, the Apex Court has in effect equated outsource employees to that of daily wagers and reliance is placed on paragraph Nos. 10 to 13, which read as follows: "10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled the Appellant Workmen as casual employees (or workers engaged through an unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof of adherence to Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation. In this context, whether an individual is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly. 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 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 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 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 longserving 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. 13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements." c. that the process of outsourcing or labelling the workmen as 'contractual' cannot be used as shield to defeat the right of regularisation. 8. It must be noticed that the Court, has relied on the observations in W.P.No.50876/2019 in extending relief in the nature of order on parity. No doubt the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is recorded at para 5. 9. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that there cannot be concession on the position of law and the relief extended to the employees in W.P.No.50876/2019 was with respect to the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 set of employees who were engaged on daily wage basis and accordingly, the submission made by the learned counsel also would be contrary to the facts as made out in W.P.No.50876/2019 and accordingly the learned counsel is not estopped from taking a different stand. Such submission requires acceptance. 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the case of Shripal (supra), the Court may be inclined to accept the legal position as made out and could have applied the law laid down in the said case. However, the matter requires consideration as regards such aspect. Taking note that the Court had primarily relied on the order passed in W.P.No.50876/2019 and had granted relief, it would be appropriate now having noticed the contention of the respondents relating to Annexure-E Series and also the distinction as regards the employees in W.P.No.50876/2019 which is not controverted, it would be appropriate that the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.14510/2024 be reviewed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2908 RP No. 30 of 2025 11. It is made clear that the Court has not voiced any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised. In the peculiar facts of the case, while allowing the review petition, it would be appropriate that the current status of the petitioners who are still stated to be executing work, are not discharged till a final decision is taken in the writ proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed, the order dated 06.12.2024 is recalled and petition is restored for fresh hearing. The matter to be listed before the appropriate roster bench at the earliest. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP