Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
M/s ITD Cemindia Jv, (A Joint Ventrue of M/s ITD Cementation India Limited And M/S Italian - Thai Public Company Limited) - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Principal Secretary To Government, Department Of Labour – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3273 of 2020 (L-RES)
Decided On : 10-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Sr. Adv., For Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Santosh Gogi, AAG With Sri. Manjunath B, Aga For Sri. S. Santhosh Narayan, Advocate, Sri. M.N. Kumar, CGC
The Central Government is the appropriate authority for BMRCL, as it has a 50% stake, making state-issued notifications regarding public utility services invalid.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(a)(i) - Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 - Section 2(1)(a) - Determination of Appropriate Government - Whether the State Government or the Central Government is the appropriate authority for BMRCL? - The court affirmed that BMRCL, being a joint venture with 50% Central Government stake, establishes Central Government as the appropriate authority, quashing the State's notification declaring metro services as essential. (Paras 10, 18, 26)
(B) Public Utility Services - The State cannot issue notifications regarding public utility services pertaining to industries under the Central Government's jurisdiction, reaffirming must-have powers must lie with the appropriate Government. (Paras 23, 27)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petitioner and regulatory context (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. contentions on appropriate government jurisdiction (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court analysis on appropriate government definition (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. jurisdictional overview and rulings on notifications (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. final decision and order of the court (Para 28) |
ORDER :
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘BMRCL’) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, 1956). BMRCL operates a metro rail network in Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner - ITD CEMINDIA JV is a public limited company and vendor for civil construction of certain elevated structures (viaduct & Stations). Petitioner-Company is registered under Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act, 1996’).
3. The petitioner has assailed, the Notification No. KAYI 139 LWA 2017 dated 18.11.2019 by 1st respondent -State Government notifying BMRCL services as an ‘essential service’.
4. The petitioner has undertaken the construction work of certain stretch of Metro Rail in Bangalore, the project under taken by BMRCL. The petitioner-Company is registered in Mumbai. The petitioner –Company is registered under Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘Act, 1970’) and the Rules made there under.
5. The petitioner–Company has also obtained licence under the Act, 1970 for construction of certain stretch of elevated structure for BMRCL in Bengaluru. 6. The petitioner- Company is also registered under Sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, 1996.
7. The BMRCL having entrusted the construction of certain stretch of BMRCL has issued a certificate undertaking to be bound by all the provisions of Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Central Rules, 1971.
8. The petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 03.12.2019, issued by 3rd respondent - Labour Officer, Division-3, Bengaluru, (Authority under the State Government), who endorsed (on the reply issued by the petitioner) that the petitioner-Company has to get it registered under the provisions of Act, 1996.
9. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders issued by the officers of the State Government on the premise that the State Government is not the appropriate Government for the petitioner in so far as the work undertaken by the petitioner in relation to the BMRCL. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.
10. Thus, the following question arises:
(i) Which is the “appropriate Government” for the petitioner in relation to work undertaken for BMRCL?
11. The respondent-State and BMRCL have raised a contention that, for BMRCL the State Government is the appropriate Government and the authorities under the State Government have jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.
12. Sri P S Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:
(i) Under Section 2 (a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘Act, 1947’) for a Railway Company, and the Company run by or under the authority of the Central Government, the Appropriate Government is the Central Government.
(ii) Section 2 (o) of the Act, 1947 defines the expression “Railway company” and the said definition incorporates the definition of “railway company” as defined in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Act, 1890). Thus, BMRCL would be a railway company as defined under the Act, 1947.
(iii) Under Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1996, the expression “appropriate Government” is defined. The appropriate Government under the said definition would be the appropriate Government for the Establishment for which the petitioner works or supplies building workers. Since the petitioner has undertaken the construction of Metro Railway for BMRCL, the appropriate Gover
