Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40113 of 2017 (L-RES), Writ Petition No. 44263 of 2017 (L-RES), Writ Petition No. 31611 of 2019 (L-RES), Writ Petition No. 52329 of 2019 (L-RES), Writ Petition No. 197 of 2020 (L-RES), Writ Petition No. 6697 of 2022 (L-RES)
Decided On : 03-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri P S Rajagopal, Sr. Adv For Smt Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri S Santhosh Narayan, Adv., Sri M N Kumar, Cgc, Sri Santhosh Gogi, Aag With Sri Manjunath B, Aga
The Central Government is the appropriate authority for BMRCL as a Railway company, not the State Government, voiding state notifications declaring its services as essential or public utility.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(a)(i) - Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2013 - The Court ruled that Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’ for BMRCL, a ‘Railway company’ as defined in Section 2(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and has pervasive control. The Karnataka State’s notifications declaring BMRCL services as ‘essential’ and ‘public utility service’ were quashed, since the State did not have jurisdiction. (Paras 44, 91)
Facts of the case:
The BMRCL Employees Union contended that the Central Government is the appropriate authority under various Industrial laws, opposing the State's claims regarding control and classification of services.(Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Court found BMRCL to be a Railway company under the Industrial Disputes Act, ruling that central legislation governs the establishment and operation of Metro Rail services versus potential state control. (Paras 41, 60)
Issues: 1) Determination of Appropriate Government for BMRCL; 2) Jurisdiction of State to classify BMRCL services under various labor laws. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the definition of ‘Railway company’ extends to the operations of BMRCL under the given legislative framework, cementing the Central Government’s predominant role. (Paras 44, 84)
Result: Writ Petitions were allowed-in-part, granting relief against BMRCL rules and state notifications concerning labor jurisdictions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determining the appropriate government for bmrcl (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. union's challenge against state government's jurisdiction (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments from the union regarding the appropriate government's definition (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. further arguments and clarifications raised by respondents (Para 17) |
| 5. court's examination of the definitions and jurisdiction (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's reasoning on control mechanisms over bmrcl (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 7. definition of railway company and its implications (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 39 , 41 , 44) |
| 8. challenges against the state notifications on essential services (Para 62 , 66 , 67) |
| 9. reaffirmation of the central government's authority (Para 77 , 78 , 84) |
| 10. final conclusion and relief granted by the court (Para 91 , 92) |
ORDER :
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. ("BMRCL") is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956(Act, 1956). BMRCL operates a metro rail network in Bengaluru. Said metro rail is popularly known as “Namma Metro” meaning thereby Our Metro.
2. The BMRCL Employees Union (Union) claims that Central Government is the “appropriate Government”. BMRCL and State contend that the State Government is the “appropriate government”.
3. In this batch of petitions, questions that need to be resolved are:
(i) Which is the “appropriate government” for BMRCL in relation to any Industrial Dispute?
(ii) Whether the State Government under Section 2 (n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, 1947) can notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as “Public utility service”?
(iii) Whether the State Government under Section 2 (1) of the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act , 2013, can notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as essential service?
4. The Union has filed three Writ Petitions namely:
(i) W.P.No.40113/2017
(ii) W.P.No.44263/2017
(iii) W.P.No.197/2020
The BMRCL has filed three Writ Petitions namely:
(i) W.P.No.31611/2019
(ii) W.P.No.52329/2019
(iii) W.P.No.6697/2022
Facts in Writ Petition No.40113/2017
5. In this petition, the Union assailed the BMRCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014 (Rules, 2014) on the premise that it could not have been approved by the authority under the State Government as the “Appropriate Government” for BMRCL is the Central Government. The petitioner-Union sought for a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent-State from granting exemption under Section 14 of the INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT STANDING ORDERS ACT , 1946 ("Act, 1946"). In addition, direction is also sought to initiate proceeding against the concerned officials of BMRCL by invoking Sections 13 and 14-A of the Act, 1946.
6. Respondent No.1 - BMRCL took a contention that the petition is premature and also urged that the Government of Karnataka is the “appropriate Government” for BMRCL. It also urged that the Act, 1946 does not apply to BMRCL as the employees of BMRCL mostly perform specialized supervisory functions and are not workmen as such, the BMRCL has sought exemption under Section 14 of the Act, 1946.
7. The State of Karnataka – respondent No.5 opposed the petition on the premise that the petition is premature and the application filed by the BMRCL seeking exemption under Section 14 of the Act, 1946 is still under consideration.
WRIT PETITION No.44263/2017
8. This petition is filed by the Union challenging the Notification dated 07.07.2017 issued under Section 3 of the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act , 2013 (Act, 2013) prohibiting strike by the employees of BMRCL.
9. The petitioner contended that the State Government has no jurisdiction to declare services of BMRCL as the ‘essential services’ as the services of BMRCL is not coming under the purview of the Act,2013. The petitioner urged that Metro Rail being a Central subject under the Union List of Constitution of India and projects concerning Metro Rail are governed by Central leg
