Only Central govt., not the State, has jurisdiction over BMRCLs industrial disputes: Karnataka High Court

In a major verdict that downgrades the State authorities’s management over administration of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), the High Court of Karnataka has dominated that the Central authorities is the “applicable authorities” for the BMRCL beneath the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, as BMRCL is a “railway firm” and operates with the ‘consent’ of the Centre.

Also, the courtroom quashed notifications issued by the State authorities declaring BMRCL providers as “public utility” in 2019 and “important providers” in 2017 whereas declaring that the State authorities lacked jurisdiction to problem such notifications beneath the ID Act, 1947, and the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act (Ok-ESMA), 2013, respectively when such energy is vested with the Centre.

The courtroom additionally restrained the State authorities from granting any exemption beneath Section 14 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to BMRCL from the provisions of this Act, whereas upholding the Central authorities’s authority to refer industrial disputes regarding BMRCL to the Central Industrial Tribunal.

Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde handed the order permitting the petitions filed by BMRCL Employees’ Union questioning the State authorities’s authority beneath ID Act and the Ok-ESMA.

Meanwhile, the courtroom dismissed the BMRCL’s petitions, by which it had questioned the orders handed by the authorities of the Central authorities declaring 12 workplace bearers of the BMRCL Employees’ Union as “protected workmen” beneath the ID Act, 1947, throughout 2019-22.

The courtroom additionally quashed the BMRCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014, because it was licensed by the State authorities with out the authority to take action.

Centre has management

While analysing the provisions of Central legislations- Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, and the Memorandum of Understanding amongst the Centre and State governments and BMRCL, the courtroom mentioned that although the State authorities performs a key position in BMRCL, main administrative selections require approval from the Central authorities.

“While each authorities holds a 50:50 share in BMRCL, the Central authorities has pervasive management and the State authorities performs second fiddle to the Central authorities,” the courtroom mentioned.

The State authorities’s declare that BMRCL’s Board consists of its personal Ministers and secretaries doesn’t show that BMRCL operates independently or solely beneath the management of the State, because the latter has to behave in establishing, sustaining, and working the ‘railway’ solely after mandatory approval or concurrence of the Central authorities, the courtroom mentioned.

‘A railway firm’

While rejecting the State authorities’s claims, the courtroom accepted the competition of the Employees’ Union that BMRCL is a “railway firm” as per the provisions of the ID Act and the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Since BMRCL is a “railway firm”, the courtroom mentioned the “applicable authorities” can be the Central authorities when it comes to the provisions of the ID Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 to deal with the economic disputes.

With regard of invoking provisions of Ok-ESMA, 2013 on BMRCL providers, the courtroom, on analysing the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Ok-ESMA, 2013, mentioned that transport by railway/metro railway is excluded from the purview of the latter and therefore the State authorities lacked jurisdiction.