Disposed

Karnataka Industrial v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2020WP/10340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging Karnataka Ordinance No. 15 of 2020. The court held that since the ordinance ceased to operate on 3rd November 2020 following the end of the legislative session without the Bill being passed by the Legislative Council, no actionable challenge existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the pending interlocutory application were disposed of as the impugned ordinance had ceased to operate.

Karnataka Industrial Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.10340/2020 (L-RES-PIL)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES FEDERATION REG.NO.ALCB04/TUA/REG-26/2017-18 TRADE UNIONS OFFICE, NO.138 GROUND FLOOR, 9^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018 REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K A GANGANNA, AGED 52 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ANANTHARAM T S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR KARMIKA BHAVANA BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 029

¶16

DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS IN KARNATAKA 2^ND FLOOR, KARMIKA BHAVANA BANNERUGHATTA BENGALURU-29

¶17

REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (GOVT. OF INDIA) SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

THE UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 4^TH FLOOR, ‘A’ WING SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4; SRI B PRAMOD, CGC FOR R-5 & 6)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROMULGATION OF KARNATAKA ORDINANCE NO.15 OF 2020 DATED 31.07.2020 PROCLAIMED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶26

The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Karnataka Ordinance No.15 of 2020. There is a statement of objections filed by the State Government. In paragraph 3 thereof, a factual statement has been made that the Houses of State Legislature reassembled on 21^st September 2020. Though a Bill in terms of the impugned ordinance was passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, it could not be passed by the Karnataka Legislative Council. It is stated that the Legislative Council was adjourned sine die on 27^th September 2020.

¶27

Thus, in view of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India, the impugned ordinance has ceased to operate from 3^rd November 2020.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 21^st October 2020 which records his apprehension that a fresh ordinance may be promulgated. However, as is clear from the statement of objections, a fresh ordinance has not been promulgated

¶29

¶30

notwithstanding the lapse of the impugned ordinance with effect from 3^rd November 2020.

¶31

It is not the case of the petitioner that he wants to

¶32

challenge any action taken pursuant to the impugned ordinance which has lapsed. Hence, the challenge in this petition does not survive as the impugned ordinance has ceased to operate from 3^rd November 2020.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

The pending interlocutory application does not

¶35

survive and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Karnataka Industrial v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Industrial v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S. Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Bharath K Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt K Yashodamma Vs Sri. Vishtnu Yaligar

Alakananda Deshpande Vs Sri Nada Goudar

Dr Muralidhara K Vs Sri J Surya Prasad

K v Rajashekhar Vs State of Karnataka