Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar vs The Labour Commissioner on 28 February, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
WP No. 4610 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4610 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
JUNIOR ASSISTANT O AND M-7,
N-3, SUB DIVISION, BESCOM,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
2. PRAKASH D.,
S/O DURGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SA-GRADE-I, KPTCL,
220 KV STATION, HOODI,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
KARMIKA BHAVANA, NO.2
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
WP No. 4610 of 2024
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (DLC-2)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
2ND FLOOR, MANJUNATHANAGAR,
BAGALAGUNTE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
3. KPTCL EMPLOYEES UNION (659)(R)
REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT
REGD. OFFICE, 'A' SECTION COMPOUND,
S.C.ROAD, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI B.ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18/12/2023, 19/12/2023 AND
18/10/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E, F AND G RESPECTIVELY AND
TO ENSURE THAT ELECTIONS TO THE R3 UNION FOR THE
YEARS 2024-2026 IS HELD BY STRICTLY FOLLOWING THE
KARNATAKA TRADE UNIONS ELECTIONS (MODEL) RULES,
1953.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
WP No. 4610 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioners are knocking at the doors of this Court
seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus to consider the representations of the petitioners
dated 18-12-2023, 19-12-2023 and 18-10-2023 and also to
ensure that the elections to the 3rd respondent/Karnataka
Power Transmission Company Limited Employees Union
('hereinafter referred to as 'the Union' for short) for the years
2024-2026 are held strictly in compliance with the Trade
Unions Election (Model) Rules, 1953 ('Model Rules' for short).
2. Heard Sri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and
Sri. B. Roopesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3.
3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
would in unison, submit that the issue in the lis stands covered
by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.1582 of 2024
disposed on 28-02-2024.
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
4. This Court, in W.P.No.1582 of 2024, by order dated
28-02-2024 holds as follows:
"10. The effort that is put up by the petitioners is
that elections are not being held in furtherance of the
Model Rules. The emphatic submission is the Union once
having adopted the Model Rules and framed its own Rules
and Regulations cannot now act contrary to the Model
Rules in any manner. He would submit that it is not for
the first time that these petitioners are agitating their
grievances. At every election they have made an effort to
project their grievance before this Court. At every time
elections would be over and on that account the petitions
were rendered infructuous. One such order passed on 21-
10-2013 in Writ Petition No.27572 of 2011 reads as
follows:
"The learned counsel for the respondents submit
that in the month of August 2011, elections were held to
the Executive Committee of the Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Employees Union. Therefore,
this petition has become infructuous.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that elections were conducted without following the
Karnataka Trade Unions Election (Model) Rules, 1953,
particularly Rule 4 sub-clause 2.
3. Since elections were conducted and
results were declared, this petition has become
infructuous. However, the respondents are
directed to follow the above said rule while
conducting elections in future."
(Emphasis supplied)
The learned single Judge notices the grievance of the
petitioner. Though elections are conducted without
following the Model Rules particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule-
4 which is quoted supra, the direction was that, in future
the elections would be conducted in tune with the
aforesaid Rule 4(2). Again when elections were sought to
be conducted, few of the members had knocked at the
doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.8733 of 2020 which
also comes to be disposed of in the light of the elections
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
being over. The present petition projects the same
grievance.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent, as observed supra, has vehemently
contended that the Model Rules are only a guiding light till
the Rules and Regulations are framed. This submission
stands to reason as the same Rules which the petitioners
now seek to project in the Model Rules had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment rendered
in H.M.T. KARMIKA SANGHA (supra). In the said
judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
12. As far as the Election Rules are concerned, it
is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that the Rule similar to 4(2)(a) and (b) of the Model
Election Rules as introduced by the Mysore Trade Union
Election (Model) (Amendment) Rules 1968 has not been
incorporated in its Rules. Therefore no reliance can be
placed upon the said Rules.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that even according to the existing Rules, there is no bar
for the Petitioner to request the Labour Commissioner or
his nominee to be a Returning Officer. In support of his
submission he relied on Rule 4 of the Election Rules of
the Petitioner. It reads:
"For purposes mentioned in the proceeding
Rule 3 and for purposes of conducting the
elections of the Sangha, the President, in his
absence the Vice President or Secretary in his
absence Joint Secretary, or any person duly
authorised by the Managing Committee
shall notify the Calendar of events in Form 'A'.
(Underlined by me - in the original)
Learned Counsel submitted that having regard to the
wording of the Rule while it was open for the President,
Vice-President, Secretary or Joint Secretary of the
Petitioner to be a Returning Officer, it was also open for
the Managing Committee to request any other person to
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
be a Returning Officer. He submitted that as in the
present case the Managing Committee had requested
the Labour Commissioner to nominate a Returning
Officer he was bound to do so.
14. It may be as contended for the Petitioner the
expression 'any other person duly authorised by the
Managing Committee' in the Election Rules of the
Petitioner as existing, can include the Labour
Commissioner or his nominee. But still the question
arises, whether a Writ of Mandamus would lie to the
Commissioner to nominate a Returning Officer. The
Rules framed by a Trade Union for purposes of securing
registration under Section 6 of the Act are Rules meant
for its internal administration and are equivalent to the
bye-laws of Co-operative Society or Rules framed by a
Society for securing registration under the Societies
Registration Act. They would have no statutory force and
consequently cannot create any statutory obligation in
the Commissioner. (See (1969) 2 SCC 43 : A.I.R. 1970
S.C. 245) Therefore, even if the Petitioner - Union had
incorporated Rules similar to Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) of the
Model Election Rules into its Election Rules, or even if
the rules without such amendment also provided for
requesting the Labour Commissioner to nominate a
Returning Officer, the Commissioner could not be
compelled by the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to
nominate a Returning Officer as the Trade Union has no
authority to create a statutory duty in the Commissioner
by framing its own Rules which have no statutory force.
Therefore, I consider it impermissible to issue a Writ of
Mandamus to the Labour Commissioner, as sought for.
15. However, I may observe, that the
Commissioner of Labour appointed by the State
Government is placed in over all in-charge of the
administration of the Labour Department and
therefore if a Trade Union makes a request to
appoint an Officer of the Labour Department as a
Returning Officer, and he considers that it is
expedient to do so, he could do so and there is
nothing in the Act or Rules which prevents him
from doing so. Therefore, in this case, particularly,
having regard to the fact that the Petitioner-Trade
Union had nominated an Advocate as Returning
Officer but the same was challenged by some other
persons and there was an injunction against him
not to hold the elections and as the term of the
office Bearers of the Petitioner Union expired on 5-
5-1984, and no election has taken place so far, it is
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
open to the Labour Commissioner to reconsider the
matter and nominate a Returning Officer acceding
to the request of the petitioner though he cannot
be compelled by the issue of a Writ of mandamus."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court considers sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the
Model Rules and holds that a writ of mandamus to
nominate a particular Returning Officer cannot be issued
by this Court. The Model Rules are adopted even without
any amendment. The said Rules are meant for internal
administration. They would have no statutory force and
would not consequently create any obligation in the State
to appoint the Labour Commissioner as the Returning
Officer. However, the Court would further observe that if
the State considers it expedient to do so, it could do so as
nothing in the Act or the Rules which prevent the State
from doing so, that is appointment of Labour
Commissioner as the Returning Officer.
12. What would unmistakably emerge from the
aforesaid judgment or the contentions put forth by both
the learned counsel is that there should be harmonious
approach between the Model Rules and the Rules and
Regulations. In the event the Rules and Regulations do
not contemplate any situation which the Model Rules have
projected, it will not come in the way of the respondents
conducting elections even looking into the Model Rules.
More so, in the light of the fact that a learned single
Judge of this Court while closing the petition as
infructuous observes that Rule 4(2) of the Model Rules
shall be followed in future. Therefore, the respondents
shall consider the representations of the petitioners qua
the grievance and hold elections harmonizing the two
where the Rules and Regulations are silent. A caveat, it
should not be considered that the Model Rules have the
effect of replacing the Rules and Regulations. But, if there
are gaping holes in the Rules and Regulations, it can be
filled up by the Model Rules in which case no prejudice
would be caused to anybody by adopting the same, as
that is the foundation for formation of the Rules and
Regulations.
NC: 2024:KHC:8357
13. With the aforesaid observations, directing
consideration of the representations submitted by the
petitioners, the petition stands disposed of."
In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgment rendered by this Court, as afore-quoted on all its
fours, this petition is also disposed on the same terms,
directing the respondents to consider the representations
submitted by the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKP
