Allowed¶214

M/S Itd Cemindia Jv v. State of Karnataka

Appropriate Government – BMRCL

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2025WP/3273/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:45713; WP No. 3273 of 2020 (L-RES); decided 10.11.2025; Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. Keywords: appropriate Government; BMRCL; Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation; metro railway; railway company; ITD Cemindia JV; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970; BOCW Act 1996 registration; Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Sections 2(a)(i), 2(o), 2(a), 2(n), 2(n)(vi) and First Schedule; public utility service; essential service notification; certiorari; quashed; W.P.No.40113/2017; Logwell Forge; CMRL Employees Union; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Notification dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent 1 and the endorsement dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent 3 are quashed; no order as to costs. ¶214

M/S Itd Cemindia Jv Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶214

Issue for consideration

Which is the 'appropriate Government' for the petitioner (ITD Cemindia JV) in relation to the work undertaken for BMRCL — the Central Government or the State Government? +2 more

¶51

Court's answer

The 'appropriate Government' for BMRCL is the Central Government, as this Court has held in W.P.No.40113/2017 and connected matters, which the present Court follows.

¶171

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is carrying on the work on behalf of BMRCL in respect of the elevated metro rail project, BMRCL having certified the petitioner as its contractor for the elevated structures.

¶181

Key takeaways

Since the appropriate Government for BMRCL is the Central Government, the respondent-State cannot direct a further registration of the petitioner under the Act, 1996 in respect of work carried on for BMRCL; consequently the endorsement dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-F) is without jurisdiction.ratio¶22
The First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not include railways; rather, it specifically excludes railways.ratio¶200
Only the 'appropriate Government' for an industry specified in the First Schedule may issue a notification under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Act, 1947; since the State Government is not the appropriate Government for BMRCL, its Notification dated 18.11.2019 (No.KAYI.139.LWV.2017, Annexure-G) is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appropriate Government — BMRCL — held to be the Central Government. The High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:45713) allowed the writ petition of M/s ITD Cemindia JV, contractor to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. for elevated viaduct and station works. Following this Court's decision in W.P.No.40113/2017 and connected matters, the Court held that the Central Government is the 'appropriate Government' for BMRCL. Consequently: (i) the respondent-State could not require a further registration of the petitioner under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, and the Labour Officer's endorsement dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-F) was quashed as without jurisdiction; and (ii) since the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifically excludes railways, only the appropriate Government could act under Section 2(n)(vi), and the State Government's Notification No.KAYI 139 LWA 2017 dated 18.11.2019 declaring BMRCL services an 'essential service' (Annexure-G) was quashed. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 12:48:32 +0530

¶9

M/S ITD CEMINDIA JV (A JOINT VENTRUE OF M/S ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED AND M/S ITALIAN - THAI PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED) HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT NATIONAL PLASTIC BUILDING, A SUBHASH ROAD, PARANJAPE B SCHEME, VILE PARLE (EAST) MUMBAI-400 057, AND SITE OFFICE AT SY.NO.25-26, NEAR KANEKAL CROSS, OPP. ITC SUNFEAST FACTORY SOUKYA ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDADUNNASANDRA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU-560 067, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶10

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

BANGALORE MRTRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

LABOUR OFFICER, DIVISION-3, BANGALORE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 029.

¶20

UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (METRO RAIL CELL), NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶21

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SANTOSH GOGI, AAG WITH SRI. MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI. S. SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. M.N. KUMAR, CGC FOR R4 AND R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.11.2019, QUASH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KAYI 139 LWA 2017 DATED 18.11.2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-G TO THE W.P.) ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENTSTATE GOVERNMENT AND INSPECTION REPORT BEARING NO.BEM/KAA-3/THANIKE/CR-24/2019-20 DATED 28.11.2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P.) ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.12.2019 MADE BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT ON THE LETTER DATED 03.12.2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P.) BY ISSUE OF A

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶28

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR FURTHER HEARING ON 11^TH AUGUST, 2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶30

CAV ORDER

¶31

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘BMRCL’) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, 1956). BMRCL operates a metro rail network in Bengaluru.

¶32

The petitioner - ITD CEMINDIA JV is a public limited company and vendor for civil construction of certain elevated structures (viaduct & Stations). Petitioner-Company is registered under Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act, 1996’).

¶33

The petitioner has assailed, the Notification No.

¶34

KAYI 139 LWA 2017 dated 18.11.2019 by 1^st respondent -

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

State Government notifying BMRCL services as an

¶39

‘essential service’.

¶40

The petitioner has undertaken the construction

¶41

work of certain stretch of Metro Rail in Bangalore, the project under taken by BMRCL. The petitioner-Company is registered in Mumbai. The petitioner –Company is registered under Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘Act, 1970’) and the Rules made there under.

¶42

The petitioner–Company has also obtained licence under the Act, 1970 for construction of certain stretch of elevated structure for BMRCL in Bengaluru.

¶43

The petitioner- Company is also registered under Sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, 1996.

¶44

The BMRCL having entrusted the construction of certain stretch of BMRCL has issued a certificate undertaking to be bound by all the provisions of Act, 1970

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition),

¶49

Central Rules, 1971.

¶50

The petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 03.12.2019, issued by 3^rd respondent - Labour Officer, Division-3, Bengaluru, (Authority under the State Government), who endorsed (on the reply issued by the petitioner) that the petitioner-Company has to get it registered under the provisions of Act, 1996.

¶51

The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders issued by the officers of the State Government on the premise that the State Government is not the appropriate Government for the petitioner in so far as the work undertaken by the petitioner in relation to the BMRCL. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.

¶52

Thus, the following question arises:

¶53

(i) Which is the “appropriate Government” for the

¶54

petitioner in relation to work undertaken for BMRCL?

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The respondent-State and BMRCL have raised a

¶59

contention that, for BMRCL the State Government is the appropriate Government and the authorities under the State Government have jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.

¶60

Sri P S Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

¶61

(i) Under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘Act, 1947’) for a Railway Company, and the Company run by or under the authority of the Central Government, the Appropriate Government is the Central Government.

¶62

(ii) Section 2(o) of the Act, 1947 defines the expression “Railway company” and the said definition incorporates the definition of “railway company” as defined in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Act, 1890). Thus, BMRCL would

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

be a railway company as defined under the Act, 1947.

¶67

(iii) Under Section 2(a) of the Act, 1996, the expression “appropriate Government” is defined. The appropriate Government under the said definition would be the appropriate Government for the Establishment for which the petitioner works or supplies building workers. Since the petitioner has undertaken the construction of Metro Railway for BMRCL, the appropriate Government for the petitioner would be the Central Government.

¶68

(iv) Under Section 2(b) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short ‘Act, 1946) the “appropriate Government” for an establishment under the control of the Central Government or a Railway administration is the Central Government.

¶69

(v) Though the Act, 1890 is repealed and is not in force, the repeal of the Act, 1890 does not obliterate the definition of the “Railway company” incorporated by

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

reference in Section 2(o) of the Act, 1947 and sub-

¶73

section (2) of Section 2 of Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, (for short ‘Act, 1978’).

¶74

(vi) The metro rail is predominantly controlled by the Central Government. Under the Act, 1978 and the Metro Railways (Operation Maintenance) Act, 2002, (for short ‘Act, 2002’) the metro railway cannot be operated without the permission of the Central Government and its operation can be stopped at any time by the Central Government.

¶75

Sri S.Santosh Narayan, learned counsel for the BMRCL raised the following contentions:

¶76

(i) The definition of ‘appropriate Government’ as provided under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, 1947 would exclude the Central Government in case the share holding of Central Government in those companies is less than 51%. The Central Government would be the

¶77

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Appropriate Government for only those companies referred to in Section 2(a)(i).

¶80

(ii) The Central Government’s shareholding in BMRCL is only 50% and BMRCL is not specifically referred to in Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, 1947, Central Government cannot be the Appropriate Government for BMRCL.

¶81

(iii) Section 2(o) of the Act, 1947 defines “Railway company” by referring to the definition of “railway company” as defined in Section 3(5) of Act, 1890. Since Act, 1890 is repealed by Railways Act, 1989 (Act, 1989), after the repeal of Act, 1890, Section 2(o) of the Act, 1947 is not amended to define the expression ‘Railway company’. Thus, the definition of “Railway company” as defined in Act, 1890 is not available, and the said definition cannot be read into in Section 2(o) of Act, 1947.

¶82

(iv) The Act, 1890 defines the expression ‘tramway’ under Section 3(1) and it incorporates the definition of ‘tramway’ as defined in Tramways Act, 1886. The

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

definition of ‘tramway’ as provided under Section 3(5) of Indian Tramways Act, 1886 does not cover the Metro Railway as metro rail was not in existence in 1886.

¶87

(v) The Act, 1989 which defines the “railway” specifically excludes the tramway.

¶88

(vi) BMRCL stands excluded from the applicability of Act, 1989 as metro railway and is not covered under the definition of railway under the Act, 1989.

¶89

(vii) BMRCL is governed under the provisions of Act, 2002

¶90

and the expression “metro railway” is defined in Section 2(i) under the Act, 2002. Said definition excludes tramways and “railway company”. Thus, BMRCL cannot be equated with a “railway company” as it is defined under the Act, 2002.

¶91

(viii) The Act, 2002 also defines the expression railway in Section 2(p) by referring to the definition of railway as defined in Clause (31) of Section 2 of Act, 1989.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

The said definition excludes tramway and does not include metro railway, as such, BMRCL is not a “railway company”.

¶96

(ix) The Act, 2002 being a Special Legislation, Act, 1890 which is repealed by Act, 1989 cannot prevail over the Special Legislation.

¶97

(x) Under the Memorandum of Understanding among the Government of India, Government of Karnataka and BMRCL, the cost of land, rehabilitation and resettlement is to be borne by the Government of Karnataka. Necessary approval, clearance and sanction for smooth implementation of the project has to be accorded by the Government of Karnataka. Thus, the State Government has pervasive control.

¶98

(xi) In Writ Petition No.16187/2009 in M/s Logwell

¶99

Forge Ltd. vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Limited¹ , the Court has held that the Government of Karnataka has substantial control over BMRCL.

¶104

(xii) In Writ Appeal No.3529/2009, the Court has held that the State Government has substantial control over BMRCL.

¶105

(xiii) In an identical case in CMRL Employees Union vs Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Ors² , the High Court of Madras has held that Chennai Metro is not a railway company coming under the purview of the Central Government.

¶106

Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.

¶107

Santosh Gogi, appearing for the State raised the following contentions:

¶108

(i) BMRCL is the joint venture of the Government of Karnataka and Government of India each having 50% stake in the BMRCL

¶109

(ii) The Board of Directors of BMRCL comprises:

¶110

1 ILR 2010 Kar 87

¶111

2 WP.No.12931/2019

¶112

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

Hon’ble Chief Minister of GOK

¶115

Hon’ble Minister of State of Bengaluru City Development,

¶116

Chief Secretary to the GOK,

¶117

Principal Secretary to GOK (Finance Department),

¶118

Chairman, BDA,

¶119

Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department,

¶120

Commissioner Bengaluru City Corporation,

¶121

Managing Director, Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation,

¶122

Special Officer, Mass Rapid Transit System.

¶123

(iii) The decision relating to the land acquisition, shifting of utilities and other structural alignment, rehabilitation of the project affected persons, multi model integration and an incidental decision is by the State Government.

¶124

(iv) Metro Rail by BMRCL is not carried on by or under the Authority of the Central Government. BMRCL is a registered Company under the Act, 1956, and its Board runs the metro railway in Bengaluru as such, it is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of Government of India;

¶125

14 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

(v) The Act, 1989 defines railway in Section 2(31) and

¶129

the definition of railway excludes the tramway. Thus, the metro rail which is similar to a tramway cannot be a railway company.

¶130

(vi) The Act, 2002 is the special enactment and it defines the expression, “metro railway” and the “railway” and the Act, 2002 makes a distinction between “railway” and “metro railway”. Hence, the “metro railway” is different from “railway” and definition of “railway” or the “railway company” in the Act, 1890 cannot be looked into;

¶131

(vii) Since, the expression “metro railway” is not referred in the Act, 1947, reference cannot be made to the definition of “railway company” in the Act, 1989 which is repealed.

¶132

(viii) The role of the Central Government is confined to the statutory framework and nothing to do with the establishment and operation of the metro railway.

¶133

15 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

(ix) Section 2(f) of Act, 2002 defines “Government metro railway” and Section 2(l) defines “non-Government metro railway”. BMRCL being a Company registered under the Act, 1956 is a “non-Government metro railway”. As such, the Central Government is not the appropriate Government for metro railway.

¶137

(x) The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India vide its letter dated 11.05.2006 has informed the Chief Secretary of State of Karnataka to enact appropriate Legislation to regulate construction, operation and maintenance of the system. Thus, the State Government has the legislative competence to enact law relating to maintenance and operation of the metro railway.

¶138

(xi) As per Clauses 12.16 to 12.18 of Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.12.2010, the Government of Karnataka has to bear the financial losses if any, and capital expenditure during the operational phase; Thus, the State Government has the primacy over

¶139

16 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

the Central Government in the operation, running and maintenance of metro railway;

¶143

(xii) Under Clause D(i) of Metro Rail Policy, 2017, the State Government has to moot for assistance by the Central Government and the State Government has to provide required support to metro rail companies.

¶144

Learned Counsel Sri. M.N Kumar for the Union

¶145

of India would urge the following points:

¶146

(i) Memorandum of Association of BMRCL classifies its main object as carrying on railway transport as a railway company. Thus, BMRCL is a Railway Company under Section 2(a)(i) r/w 2(o) of the Act, 1947.

¶147

(ii) The Bengaluru Metro Phase-I received Government of India’s approval with equity/ subordinate debt and imposed conditions governing implementation which demonstrates central control.

¶148

(iii) BMRCL is registered as Principal Employer with the Central Government under Section 7 of the Act, 1970

¶149

17 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

indicating jurisdiction of authorities under the Legislation passed by the Parliament.

¶153

(iv) The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 1(3) of Act, 1978 issued Notification extending the Act, 1978 to Karnataka which establishes the Central Government’s control governing metro construction in Bengaluru.

¶154

(v) The Joint Venture Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.12.2010 provides 50:50 share holding. It provides for appointment of General Manager only with the approval of the Central Government and the Chairman is nominated by the Central Government.

¶155

(vi) Phase-II of Bangalore Metro Railway is approved by the Central Government in exercise of power under the Act, 1978 and Act, 2002.

¶156

(vii) The Committee constituted by the Central Government is involved in payment of wages, inspections, compliance and grievance redressal.

¶157

18 -

¶158

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

(viii) The Delhi High Court treated Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as “Railways” for purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of Act, 1947 and The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 in the context of industrial action, supporting Central “appropriate Government”.

¶161

(ix) The Karnataka Labour Commissioner’s letter dated 26/04/2022 states BMRCL does not fall under the State Labour Department and that the Central Government shall address workmen’s grievances, evidencing inter-Governmental consensus on jurisdiction.

¶162

The Court has considered the contentions raised

¶163

at the Bar and perused the records.

¶164

The question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the “Appropriate Government” for BMRCL has to be decided by referring to the definition of “Appropriate Government” referred to the definition of

¶165

19 -

¶166

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

appropriate Government as found in Section 2(a) of the

¶169

Act, 1947.

¶170

This Court has decided the aforementioned

¶171

question in W.P.No.40113/2017 and connected matters. And the Court has held that for BMRCL the “Central Government” is the “appropriate Government”.

¶172

The Act, 1996 defines the ‘appropriate Government’ under Section 2(1)(a) and the definition of appropriate Government which is relevant for the adjudication of this case reads as under:

¶173

"2(1)(a) “appropriate government” means,-

¶174

(i) in relation to an establishment (which employs building workers either directly or through a contractor) in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is the Central Government, the Central Government;

¶175

(ii) in relation to any such establishment, being a public sector undertaking, as the Central Government may by notification specify which employs building workers either directly or through a contractor, the Central Government;

¶176

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶177

HC-KAR

¶178

Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-clause (ii), “public sector undertaking” means any corporation established by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government Company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), which is owned, controlled or managed by the Central Government;"

¶179

When a specific question is put to the contesting respondents as to whether the expression “ in relation to establishment which employs building workers either directly or through a contractor” found in Section 2(a) referred to above would apply to the establishment like BMRCL, it is submitted that the expression would refer to the establishments which employ building workers either directly or through a contractor.

¶180

The petitioner on 03.07.2017 has obtained registration certificate under the Act, 1996 in respect of construction of elevated structures for which BMRCL has obtained licence under Act, 1996. BMRCL has also certified that petitioner is the contractor for the elevated structures

¶181

21 -

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

referred to above. Hence, the petitioner is carrying on the work on behalf of BMRCL in respect of aforementioned elevated metro rail project.

¶185

In that event, the respondent-State insofar as the work carried on by the petitioner for BMRCL cannot direct one more registration under the Act, 1996 at the hands of State authorities. In that view of the matter, the endorsement dated 03.12.2019 at Annexure – F is without jurisdiction.

¶186

The petitioner has also questioned the Notification dated 18.11.2019 issued under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Act, 1947 as public utility service. Entry 1 of First Schedule to Act, 1947 reads as under.

¶187

Relevant portion of Section 2(n) of Act, 1947 reads as under

¶188

2(n) “ Public utility service” means-

¶189

i. Any railway service or any transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air

¶190

ii. xxx

¶191

22 -

¶192

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶193

HC-KAR

¶194

(vi) Any industry specified in the first schedule which the appropriate Government may, if satisfied that public emergency or public interest so requires by notification in the Official Gazette declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Act, for such period as may be specified in the notification.

¶195

xxx

¶196

The first entry in the First Schedule in the Act,

¶197

1947 reads as under:

¶198

'1. Transport (other than railways) for the carriage of passengers or goods by land or water’.

¶199

(Emphasis supplied)

¶200

First schedule to the Act, 1947 does not include railway. Rather, it specifically excludes railway.

¶201

Section 2(n)(vi) provides that appropriate

¶202

Government may, if satisfied that public interest so requires, notify public utility service in respect of an industry specified in the First Schedule. Since 'appropriate Government’ for BMRCL, is the Central Government, the

¶203

23 -

¶204

NC: 2025:KHC:45713 WP No. 3273 of 2020

¶205

HC-KAR

¶206

State Government has no power to issue Notification in respect of Railway.

¶207

To issue Notification under Section 2(n)(vi) of Act, 1947, in respect of any industry specified in the First Schedule, the Government issuing the Notification must be the ‘appropriate Government’ for that industry. Since State Government is not the appropriate Government for BMRCL the Notification dated 18.11.2019 at No.KAYI.139.LWV.2017 at Annexure–G issued by the State Government is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.

¶208

Since the appropriate Government for the BMRCL is Central Government, the State Government cannot declare the Metro services as a Public utility service under Section 2(n) of Act, 1947.

¶209