( 1 ) THE petitioner, S. Annaji Rao Jadhav, has obtained a rule from this court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ under art. 226 of the Const should not be granted for quashing the Circular of the Commissioner of Labour, d/ 11-3-1970 and the order of his transfer d/8-6-1973. He has also prayed for a writ or order to quash certain memos issued by the Commissioner of Labour relating to the performance of his official duties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Labour Inspector appointed by the State Govt. His main duty, among others, is to enforce the provisions of the Karnataka shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act". While performing his duty, it appears, he has been misunderstood by his official superiors and particularly the Commissioner of labour. On 11-3-1970, the Commr of Labour issued a Circular which is in the following terms :"govt of Mysore, Dept of Labour office of the Commr of Labour in Mysore, P. B. 304, B'lore-1 no. IE/sca/aar/ch. 165/69-70. d/. 11th March, 1970 circular sub: "prosecutions under several Labour Acts ref: Letter No. FCL 35 LWA 69 d/. 25-2-70 from Govt. Sanction for launching prosecution under any Act should be obtained from the Commr of Labour in Mysore, Bangalore in respect of statutory Corporations, Banks and Public Sector Undertakings. The Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Officers of the labour Wing are instructed to see that they adhere to the above instructions strictly. Sd/ for Commr of Labour. "the petitioner did not follow thei Circular. He was of thei opinion that in prosecuting any employer for disobedience of the provisions of the Act, no sanction from the Commr was necessary. Accordingly, he prosecuted the Manager of Hindustan Steel Ltd, Branch Sales Office, Bangalore and the Accountant of the said firm. The Commr found fault with the petitioner for contravening the Circular and he, by his memo d/14-11-1972 warned the petitioner for his negligence and dereliction of duties in carrying out the instructions contained in his Office Circular d/11-3-1970. The petitioner requested the Commr to withdraw the warning, inter alia, contending that the Inspector appointed under the Act is well within his powers to launch prosecutions against parsons contravening any of the provisions of the Act without the sanction of the Commr. The Commr refused to withdraw the warning. On 19-1-1971, the Commr issued another memo to all the Labour Officers and Inspectors in the State stating that the prosecution proposals should be submitted by the; Labour Inspectors to the Labour Officers with all the relevant records for scrutiny and suitable instructions as to whether the cases could be filed before Courts and obey the instructions thus issued to the Inspectors by the Labour Officers in regard to the prosecutions. On 8-6-1973, the petitioner was transferred from Bangalore to KGF. Thereupon, he immediately moved this Court with an application under Art. 226 of the Constn, contending that his transfer was mala fide and the Circular d/11-3-1970 was invalid and ultra vires of the Act.

( 3 ) THE allegations of the petitioner have been controverted in the statement of Objections, the deponent of which is one Under Secretary to govt, Social Welfare and Labour Dept, Bangalore. It was said that the commr being a Head of the Dept and also the principal officer for administration of the Act, was competent to issue the impugned Circular. It was also stated that the said Circular was issued with a view to prevent frivor lous prosecutions being launched by the Labour Inspectors against statutory corporations, Banks and Public Sector Undertakings, and it only directed the Labour Inspectors to obtain prior sanction from the Commr on the administrative side, and the, same did not take away the power conferred on the Labour Inspectors to launch prosecutions under the various labour laws in force,. It was further stated that the petitioner who is a subordinate offic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document