1. Company challenges legality of proposed strike by workers' Union during pending conciliation proceedings under Industrial Relations Code, 2020. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
BOSCH Automotive Electronics India Pvt Ltd., Represented By Its Senior General Manager, HR sri. Srinivasa B.A. – Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Labour Commissioner, Karmika Bhavana Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8044 of 2026 (L-RES)
Decided On : 24-07-2026
Important Points
Writ petitions against trade unions to restrain strikes are generally not maintainable. However, Industrial Tribunals have limited jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of strikes during conciliation proceedings under Section 62 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, without adjudicating the merits of the substantive industrial dispute.
Subject
Labor Law - Industrial Relations
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - Sections 44, 53, 60, 62, 63 and 97 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition against a Trade Union - Whether a writ petition to restrain a strike is maintainable when the Union is not an instrumentality of State and does not discharge a public duty - Generally not maintainable as a workers' union does not qualify as a body discharging public duty or public function, and is neither the 'State' nor a statutory authority (Paras 14-21).
(B) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - Section 97 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court - Civil Courts are expressly barred from having jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of the Code applies, and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything done or intended to be done by or under the Code (Paras 38-40).
(C) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - Section 44(7)(c) and Section 62(1)(d) - Power of Industrial Tribunal to decide illegality of strike - Whether the Tribunal can intervene during pendency of conciliation proceedings - To avoid a legislative vacuum and ensure the efficacy of the statutory prohibition against strikes during conciliation, the Industrial Tribunal possesses limited jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a strike under Section 62(1)(d) without entering into the merits of the substantive industrial dispute (Paras 43-59).
Facts of the case:
An industrial establishment filed a writ petition to restrain a workers' union from proceeding with a strike. The establishment contended that the proposed strike was illegal as it was scheduled to commence while conciliation proceedings were still pending, which is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and rendered illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Findings of Court:
The court found that a Trade Union is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not perform a public duty. However, the court ruled that the Industrial Tribunal is the specialized forum designated to decide the illegality of strikes. It held that the Tribunal can exercise limited jurisdiction to enforce the statutory prohibition against strikes during conciliation, even before the conciliation process formally concludes, to prevent the statutory right from being robbed of its essence.
Issues: (a) Whether an industrial establishment, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, can maintain a writ petition to restrain a strike by the workers’ Union on the ground that the proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020? (b) Whether an aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, challenging the legality of a proposed strike when conciliation proceedings concerning the industrial dispute are pending?
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against a private body like a Trade Union unless it discharges a public duty. Although Section 53(6) typically indicates that Tribunal proceedings follow the conclusion of conciliation, a purposive and harmonious construction is necessary to enforce the prohibition under Section 62. Thus, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 44(7)(c) allows it to determine the legality of a strike during the conciliation period, provided such adjudication is limited to the statutory violation and does not touch upon the merits of the underlying industrial dispute.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal.
(B) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - Section 97 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court - Civil Courts are expressly barred from having jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of the Code applies, and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything done or intended to be done by or under the Code (Paras 38-40).
(C) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - Section 44(7)(c) and Section 62(1)(d) - Power of Industrial Tribunal to decide illegality of strike - Whether the Tribunal can intervene during pendency of conciliation proceedings - To avoid a legislative vacuum and ensure the efficacy of the statutory prohibition against strikes during conciliation, the Industrial Tribunal possesses limited jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a strike under Section 62(1)(d) without entering into the merits of the substantive industrial dispute (Paras 43-59).
Facts of the case:
An industrial establishment filed a writ petition to restrain a workers' union from proceeding with a strike. The establishment contended that the proposed strike was illegal as it was scheduled to commence while conciliation proceedings were still pending, which is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and rendered illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Findings of Court:
The court found that a Trade Union is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not perform a public duty. However, the court ruled that the Industrial Tribunal is the specialized forum designated to decide the illegality of strikes. It held that the Tribunal can exercise limited jurisdiction to enforce the statutory prohibition against strikes during conciliation, even before the conciliation process formally concludes, to prevent the statutory right from being robbed of its essence.
Issues: (a) Whether an industrial establishment, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, can maintain a writ petition to restrain a strike by the workers’ Union on the ground that the proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020? (b) Whether an aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, challenging the legality of a proposed strike when conciliation proceedings concerning the industrial dispute are pending?
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against a private body like a Trade Union unless it discharges a public duty. Although Section 53(6) typically indicates that Tribunal proceedings follow the conclusion of conciliation, a purposive and harmonious construction is necessary to enforce the prohibition under Section 62. Thus, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 44(7)(c) allows it to determine the legality of a strike during the conciliation period, provided such adjudication is limited to the statutory violation and does not touch upon the merits of the underlying industrial dispute.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and industrial law
- industrial disputes and relations
- industrial relations code 2020
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. C.K. Subramanya, Advocate for Sri. B.C. Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. M. Rajakumar, AGA, Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Sri. C.K. Subramanya, Advocate for Sri. B.C. Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. M. Rajakumar, AGA, Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Company argues writ petition maintainable to enforce statutory prohibition on strike during conciliation; Union contends writ not maintainable against it. (Para 6 , 8 )
3. Writ petition generally not maintainable against Trade Union as it neither discharges public duty nor qualifies as State under Article 12. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 )
4. Despite pending conciliation, party can approach Industrial Tribunal for limited enforcement of statutory strike prohibition under Section 62 of Code 2020. (Para 61 , 62 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to approach competent Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of Section 62(1)(d) prohibition. (Para 61 , 62 )
6. Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable against a workers' Union to restrain a strike during pending conciliation proceedings?
Generally not maintainable as a Trade Union is not 'State' under Article 12 and does not discharge public duty, except in exceptional cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 61 )
7. Can an aggrieved party approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, challenging a strike's legality during pending conciliation?
Yes, for limited relief to enforce the statutory prohibition under Section 62. The Tribunal can decide if the strike violates that provision without adjudicating the main dispute. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
8. Does Section 97 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, bar a Civil Court from granting an injunction against a strike?
Yes, Section 97 expressly bars civil courts from granting injunctions in respect of matters covered by the Code, including strikes. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )
9. What is the limited jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 44 of the Code, 2020, regarding strike legality during conciliation?
Tribunal can determine illegality of strike under Section 62 without entering merits of the main industrial dispute. Jurisdiction is co-extensive with prohibition period. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 50 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 61 )
ORDER :
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
(a) Whether an industrial establishment, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, can maintain a writ petition to restrain a strike by the workers’ Union on the ground that the proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020?
(b) Whether an aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, challenging the legality of a proposed strike when conciliation proceedings concerning the industrial dispute are pending?
These two questions arise for consideration in this petition filed by the Company challenging the legality of the intended strike by the workers’ Union, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS:
The petitioner is a registered Company and engaged in the manufacture and supply of automotive electronic components since 2009. For the purpose of deciding the present petition, it is not necessary to refer to the circumstances leading to the proposed strike. Suffice it to state that a dispute arose between the petitioner-Company and respondent No.2-Union in relation to the charter of demands.
2. The petitioner claims that, despite its best offer to settle the charter of demands, the Union did not accept the same. The Union, submitted a charter of demands dated 23.02.2026 for the period commencing from April 2026 to March 2027, which, according to the petitioner-Company, could not have been submitted. On the same day, i.e., 23.02.2026, the Union issued the impugned strike notice intimating that the strike would commence on or after 09.03.2026.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 23.02.2026. Acting upon the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1-Conciliation Officer issued a notice directing the parties to appear for conciliation on 03.03.2026.
4. Admittedly, when the writ petition was filed on 09.03.2026, the conciliation proceedings had not concluded. The conciliation proceedings, which commenced on 03.03.2026, were adjourned to 06.03.2026 and thereafter to 10.03.2026. It appears that the Union had decided to proceed with the strike scheduled to commence from 09.03.2026 despite the statutory prohibition against holding a strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.
5. In the aforesaid factual background, the present petition is filed contending that the proposed strike is illegal. This Court granted an ex parte interim order restraining the Union from proceeding with the strike.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company would urge the following contentions:
(a) Section 62(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (‘Code, 2020’) prohibits a strike or lock-out during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and for seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
(b) Under Section 63 of the Code, 2020, a strike or lock-out commenced or declared in contravention of Section 62 is illegal.
(c) Since the conciliation proceedings are pending, the petitioner cannot approach the Tribunal under the Code, 2020 and, therefore, the writ petition is the only remedy available to the petitioner.
(d) In the written submissions, it is further urged that the workers’ Union is recognised under the Code, 2020 and is bound by the provisions of the Code, 2020. Therefore, a writ petition is maintainable to enforce statutory rights, prevent violation of statutory provisions and enforce statutory duties cast upon the Union.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees Union and Others , 2003-III-LLJ.
(ii) Tamilnadu Nugrporul Vaniba Kazhaga Anna Thozhir Sangam Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine MAD 14430.
(iii) United Labour Federation Vs. Union of India and Another , W.P. No.47257 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.52794 of 2025.
(iv) Indian Oil Corporatio
