The Workmen of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. Vs the Government of India

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 23630 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE WORKMEN OF BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN EMPLOYEES UNION(R), (TRADE UNION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN TRADE UNIONS ACT) AFFILIATED TO BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 003, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), 'SHRAM SADAN', 3RD CROSS, III MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022, EMAIL ID: [email protected]

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

3 THE MANAGEMENT OF BHARATIYA

¶19

RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD., (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT) REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R1 PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 01.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by first respondent insofar as not referring to certain demands raised by the petitioner to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short) for adjudication.

¶30

The impugned order is marked at Annexure-E. The said order is dated 01.12.2022. In terms of the said order, the appropriate Government (Central Government) has not referred the dispute to the Tribunal in respect of demand Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 raised by the petitioner-union and remaining demands made by the petitioner-Union are referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

¶31

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that whenever the demands are raised and the dispute is referred, the authority has a very limited jurisdiction to reject the demands and even if such a power is exercised, it has to be preceded by reasons. He would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma, Surinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India, State of Haryana, (AIR(SC)-1985-0-915).

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 would submit that there is no obligation on the part of the Central Government to refer all the demands to the Tribunal for adjudication and the authority is competent to segregate the demands and refer only those demands which are appropriate for adjudication.

¶36

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶37

The Apex Court in the aforementioned case has held that the Court can after examining the reasons given by the appropriate Government for refusing to make a reference come to a conclusion that they are irrelevant, extraneous and not germane to the determination and then can direct the Government to reconsider the matter. This legal position appears to be beyond the pale of controversy.

¶38

The relevant portion of the impugned order at Annexure-E reads as under:

¶39

"The Schedule

¶40

Whether the action of the management of the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt.Ltd., Mysore in not considering the demand Nos.4, 6, 7,

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

9 and 10 of the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Employees Union, Mysore vide letter dated 21.05.2022 and 13.07.2021 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the said union is entitled to?"

¶44

From the impugned order, it is noticed that the Government has not referred the demand Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 made by the petitioner-Union to the Tribunal for adjudication and there is no reason whatsoever for not referring rest of the demands for adjudication. As can be seen from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Avtar Sharma, supra the appropriate Government was required to assign the reason for not referring the dispute for adjudication. Under these circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure-E to the extent not referring the demands to the Tribunal for adjudication has to be set-aside and the matter has to be referred to the Central Government for reconsideration of the demands made by the petitioner herein for reference.

¶45

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or respondents. The appropriate Government shall pass

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

appropriate orders bearing in mind the issue laid down in Ram Avtar Sharma, supra . Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The petition is allowed;

¶52

ii) The impugned order dated 01.12.2022 at Annexure-E issued by first respondent is quashed;

¶53

iii) The matter is referred to appropriate Government (Central) to consider the prayer to refer the dispute relating to the demands for adjudication keeping in mind the ratio in Ram Avtar Sharma, supra.

¶54

iv) Since it is noticed that the impugned order is passed on 01.12.2022 and the dispute is referred in respect of certain demands, and the Industrial Tribunal, is adjudicating the same and since it is alleged that other demands for which the matter is not referred are also interconnected, the appropriate Government shall pass appropriate orders on the request to refer those matters, considering the merits of the claim of both parties, within

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:20748 WP No. 23630 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶59

order.

¶60

This order should not be construed as having expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties and all contentions available under law kept open to be considered

¶61

by the appropriate Government.

¶62

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶63

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK...

The Workmen of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Workmen of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

At and S India Pvt. Ltd. Vs General Secretary at and S India Pvt. Ltd.

The Area Manager Vs the Chief Deputy Labour Commissioner

Rajaram Vs M P Govindappa

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom) Vs G Shivappa

C.Pandiyaraj Vs the Management of M/S East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd.

M/S. Sstella Silks Limited Vs Zilla Powerloom and Handloom Workers Union