Petitioner, elected president of a journalists' trade union, challenged an ad-hoc appointment replacing him. The court held the union is not a State authority and not amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction, but directed the labour authorities to consider his representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:3542 WP No. 17148 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17148 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR KARANJI, SON OF LATE MANIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST, BIDAR DISTRICT-585401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VACHAN GOWDA FOR SRI. HARISH M. G., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GAGANA K.D., FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATES FOR R2; SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R4 AND R5; R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD 18.04.2023 BY APPOINTING THE R-3 AS AN AD-HOC PRESIDENT OF THE UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST, BIDAR PRODUCED AT ANNX-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:3542 WP No. 17148 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for the following relief:-
Karnataka Union of Working Journalist, Bidar District and he was elected as such on 27.02.2022 for a period of three years. The petitioner claims that the term of office was till the year 2024-25. However, without removing the petitioner in accordance with law and without following the due process of law, the respondent No.1 appointed
NC: 2024:KHC:3542 WP No. 17148 of 2023
respondent No.3 as an ad-hoc President which is in violation of the bye-laws of respondent No.1. The petitioner therefore, issued a notice through his counsel on 22.05.2023 addressed to respondent No.2. The petitioner also submitted a representation to respondent No.5 on 18.07.2023 to take suitable action and restore his position
as the President of the trade union. Since the aforesaid representation was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court for the aforementioned reliefs.
respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.3 as an ad-hoc President cannot be set at naught in a petition filed under
NC: 2024:KHC:3542 WP No. 17148 of 2023
Article 226 of Constitution of India. But the petitioner is entitled for his representation to be considered at the hands of respondent No.5. Since respondent No.5 has not considered the said representation, direction needs to be issued to the respondent No.5 to consider the representation in accordance with law and in accordance with the bye-laws of the trade union.
to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall hear respondent Nos.1 to 3 before considering the representation of the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
KBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
1 issue framed by the court
Is a trade union amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as a State instrumentality?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Karanji
Shivananda Tagadooru
G. C. Lokesh
D. K. Ganapathi
The Labour Officer, Department of Labour, Bidar
Assistant Labour Commissioner Division-3
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
