Case Law Details
President of Bengaluru Metro Rail Employees Union (Reg) Vs Management of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court heard the case of the Bengaluru Metro Rail Employees Union (Reg) versus the Management of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), where the petitioner sought recognition for their union. The petitioner, a registered employees’ union, had requested the recognition of their union in a letter dated February 24, 2021, but BMRCL had not granted this recognition. The union invoked writ jurisdiction to demand recognition, arguing that their case merited such an action.
The Court noted that there is no statutory provision in the State of Karnataka that governs the recognition of trade unions. The recognition of a union, as per the law, is at the discretion of the employer and cannot be compelled through a writ petition. The Court referred to the case of Workmen of the Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Management of the Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. (ILR 1994 KAR 1566), which established that trade union recognition is not enforceable as a right without a statutory provision. The petitioner’s reliance on other legal precedents was found inapplicable to the present case. As a result, the writ petition was rejected, and the Court ruled that the recognition of the union could not be enforced by judicial intervention.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Sri. Santosh Narayan. S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferencing.
2. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 12.12.2023, on that day, counsel for petitioner Sri. Dhanasegaran. N., appeared and argued the matter and to hear further, the petition was ordered to be listed on 05.01.2024.
The petition was listed on 05.01.2024, on that day, though matter called twice, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it was ordered to be listed on 09.01.2024 at 2:30 pm. The petition was again listed on 09.01.2024, on that day, taking note of the memo filed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned and it was ordered to be listed on 29.01.2024 at 2:30 pm.
The petition was listed on 29.01.2024, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Taking note of the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, for appearance of counsel for the petitioner, it was ordered to be listed on 30.01.2024 at 2:30 pm.
The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass order on the merits of the case.
3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
1) To issue directions to the respondents authorities as this Hon’ble Court deems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case;
2) To issue directions to the respondent authorities to accord recognition to the petition union in the fact and circumstances of the case;
3) To pass order/ directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit;
4) To award exemplary costs.
4. As already noted above, the petitioner was heard on 12.12.2023. Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1) A.ANNAMMA VS. SECRETARY, COCHIN COOPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LIMITED – (2018) 2 SCC 729.
2) NITYANANDA M.JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – 1970 AIR 209.
3) K.PORWAL (BY MANAGER) VS. LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR – (1968) 70 BOM LR 104.
4) BASAWARAJ AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – (2013) 14 SCC 81.
5) Order passed in W.P.No.6976/2019 (L-RES).
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance in the case of WORKMEN OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE YSUGAR FACTOR LTD., VS. MANAGEMENT OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1566.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
5. Suffice it to note that the first respondent – BMRCL is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a special purpose vehicle – A Joint Venture of both State Government and Central Government – for establishing, operating and maintaining a rapid transit rail system in and around Bangalore so as to meet the urban transport needs of Bangalore. Its affairs are controlled by the State Government. The day to day activities are carried out by the Board consisting of the Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors. Government of Karnataka is the appropriate Government for BMRCL.
It is stated that the petitioner – Bengaluru Metro Rail Employees Union vide letter dated:24.02.2021 sought for recognition of their Union. The petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction to accord recognition to the Union. It is pivotal to note that the recognition of Union is not regulated by any statutory provision in the State of Karnataka; recognition unless granted in terms of a statutory provision cannot create any enforceable right in the Union. In the absence of any statutory provision, the petitioner cannot enforce any right of recognition against the Management by filing a Writ Petition. Furthermore, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not make any provision for recognition of Trade Union as a matter of right. Needless to say that recognition depends on the discretion of the employer which cannot be imposed by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the law is well settled by this Court in the case of WORKMEN OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., VS. MANAGEMENT OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1566.
The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
In view of rejection of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Author Bio
