Karnataka High Court
The Workmen Of Bharatiya Reserve Bank ... vs The Government Of India on 17 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
WP No. 23630 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 23630 OF 2023 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
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.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by C AND:
HONNUR
SAB
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
Location: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
HIGH COURT
OF RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001,
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
'SHRAM SADAN', 3RD CROSS,
III MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022,
EMAIL ID: [email protected]
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
WP No. 23630 of 2023
HC-KAR
3 THE MANAGEMENT OF BHARATIYA
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
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
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.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned Counsel for
respondent No.3.
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
HC-KAR
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
HC-KAR
5. 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.
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
bar and perused the records.
7. 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.
8. The relevant portion of the impugned order at
Annexure-E reads as under:
"The Schedule
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,
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
HC-KAR
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?"
9. 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.
10. 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
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
HC-KAR
appropriate orders bearing in mind the issue laid down in Ram
Avtar Sharma, supra. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order dated 01.12.2022 at Annexure-E
issued by first respondent is quashed;
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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC:20748
HC-KAR
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
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
by the appropriate Government.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
YN
CT: BHK...
