[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs General Secretary on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
WP No. 4615 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2026 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
LPG BOTTLING PLANT, 47 KM STONE-NH48,
SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR
DIST-562127 A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ENGAGED IN THE
OPERATION OF MAJOR REFINERIES LPG
DISTRIBUTION, MARKETING DISTRIBUTION OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER,
(LPG) SRI. ARVIND GOEL
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C K SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally SRI. B C PRABHAKAR.,ADVOCATE)
signed by AND:
PRAMILA G V
Location: 1. GENERAL SECRETARY
HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA PETROLEUM AND GAS WORKERS'
KARNATAKA UNION CITU OFFICE, UDAYANAGAR,
DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560 016.
UNDER INDIAN TRADE UNION ACT 1926.
2. ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL) SHIRAM SADAN, III CROSS, III
MAIN, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
WP No. 4615 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. M/S.MATHRUSREE ELECTRICALS LPG PLANT,
NO 175, SOLUR VILLAGE SOLUR LPG PLANT
PREMISES, MAGADI,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562127
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONTRACTOR
SRI.DHANANJAYA
UNDER CONTRACT LABOUR,
(REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT 1970.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI B PRAMOD, CGSC FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH
V/O/DT 11.02.2026)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
DIRECTION TO THE R1 FOREBEAR FROM RESTORING TO
STIRKE PURSUANT TO THE STRIKE NOTICE DATED
24.01.2026 (ANNX-B).DIRECTION TO THE R1 EITHER BY
THEMSELVES OR THROUGH THEIR AGENTS SUPPORTERS
ASSOCIATES PARTRONS, MEMBERS AND ACCOMPLICES
AGAINST PREVENTING OR OBSTRUCTING THE EMPLOYEES
CONTRACT LABOURS AGENTS CUSTOMERS CLIENTS ETC.,
IN FREE INGRESS TO OR EGRESS FROM WITHIN THE
PREMISES OF THE PLAINT SITUATED AT SOLUR
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
WP No. 4615 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 undertakes to
appear on behalf of respondent No.1/Union.
2. This petition is filed seeking urgent relief and
seeking a writ to restrain first respondent from resorting to a
strike on 12.02.2026, pursuant to a strike notice dated
24.01.2026.
3. Since, the petition would become infructuous by
day-after-tomorrow, with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, heard on merits.
4. It appears that respondent No.1/Union has raised
several issues and demands and the strike is called on
12.02.2026 on the premise that their demands have not been
considered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/Corporation is a public utility service within the
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
definition of Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
('Act, 1947') and it is a controlled industry within the
definition of Section 2(ee) of the Act, 1947.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner/Corporation
supplies LPG and fuel which is needed on everyday basis and
in case of any disruption in the supply of the LPG and the
fuels, even for a day it will affect the public at large. It is also
urged that the strike which is scheduled on 12.02.2026 is per
se illegal as statutory requirement is not complied.
7. In support of the contention that the petitioner's
claim has a statutory support, it is submitted that the
conciliation proceeding in respect of the strike scheduled on
12.02.2026 (tomorrow) is pending consideration before the
jurisdictional Conciliation Officer and same is adjourned to
12.02.2026 and the proceeding is not yet concluded.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that Section 22 of the Act, 1947 prohibits strike before
conclusion of conciliation proceeding.
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
9. Learned counsel would refer to the judgment of
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Petroleum
Employee's Union and Others1 to contend that in identical
situation the Court has restrained the strike.
10. It is also submitted that under the Industrial
Relations Code, 2020, a provision similar to Section 22 is very
much retained in Section 62.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
has opposed the prayer on the following grounds:
(a) Respondent No.1 is not a State under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India, as such Writ Petition itself is not
maintainable. When the writ petition itself is not
maintainable, much less is the maintainability of the
interim prayer;
(b) The remedy for the petitioner/Corporation is to
approach the authorities or the forums provided under the
2001 (103) BOMLR 112
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
Act, 1947 and without exhausting the statutory remedy,
the writ petition is not maintainable.
(c) In a similar situation the Bombay High Court in Bharat
Petroleum Corporation (supra), has held that the suit
to restrain the employees from going on strike is not
maintainable and the right to hold strike is a right
conferred on the workmen.
12. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
13. It is not in dispute that Section 22 of the Act,
1947 prescribes certain limitations and restrictions before
calling upon the strike.
14. Under Section 22 of the Act, 1947, a person
employed in a Public Utility Service shall not go on strike
in breach of a contract, without giving notice of strike to
the employer within 6 weeks before the date of strike, or
within 14 days of giving notice of such strike, or before
the expiry of the date of the strike specified in any notice
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
as aforesaid, or during the pendency of any conciliation
proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, and within 7
days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
15. Admittedly, in the instant case, the notice is
issued intimating the date of strike and admittedly, the
conciliation proceedings have been commenced between
the petitioner and the employees of the
petitioner/Corporation. The conciliation proceeding is now
scheduled for tomorrow.
16. This being the position, the petitioners contend
that the members of the respondent no.1/Union, who are
the employees of the petitioner/Corporation cannot go on
strike as conciliation proceeding is pending.
17. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.1
has urged that the writ petition is not maintainable, what
is required to be seen is the petition is filed to enforce the
statutory rights available in favour of the employer.
Similar question has been answered in favour of the
employer in the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Petroleum Employees Union and Others2. The said
judgment is rendered by referring to the judgment of the
Apex Court in VST Industries Ltd. Vs. VST Industries
Workers' Union. 3
18. Thus, the Court is of the view that in the
backdrop of the facts obtained in the present petition, the
Writ Petition is maintainable as the same is filed to
enforce the right available under Section 22 of the Act,
1947.
19. As far as the contention that, the prayer cannot
be granted to restrain the employees from going on
strike, the Court is of the view that, in case a strike is
declared by following the procedure and the strike
declared does not violate any of the requirements of
Section 22 of the Act, 1947, probably in those cases, the
(2004) 3 MLJ 456
MANU/SC/0760/2000
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
Court may not issue a prohibitory order to restrain the
workers from going on strike.
20. In the instant case, as it is noticed that the
conciliation proceeding is still going on, Section 22(1)(d)
of Act, 1947, comes to the rescue of the petitioners.
21. It is also noticed that the grievance of the
petitioner is that in case the strike is held and the
employees of the petitioner/Corporation do not report to
duty, it may disrupt the supply of many essential
products like LPG and fuel. This being the position, the
Court is of the view that the petitioners have made out a
case to grant some protection.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in ROHTAS
INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. VS ROHTAS
INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION AND ORS.4 to contend
that the petitioner has a remedy under the statute to
claim appropriate relief like damages.
AIR 1976 SC 425
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
23. The Court has gone through the said judgment
and the petitioner in the said case sought relief, post the
strike, and the Court held that in such situation the
petitioner cannot approach the writ Court.
24. In the instant case, the petition is filed to
restrain the respondents from holding the strike, before
the scheduled date of strike, on the ground that the
conciliation proceeding is still pending.
25. The learned counsel for respondent No.1
vehemently opposed the prayer to restrain the strike
referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
Bharat Petroleum Corporation (supra). The Bombay
High Court in the said case has considered the claim in
the backdrop of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by the
employer.
26. As already noticed, the Court has held in the
backdrop of the facts of this case that Writ Petition is
maintainable as the petitioner is before this Court to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
enforce the statutory right available under Section 22 of
the Act, 1947. It is also noticed that the conciliation
proceeding is scheduled on 12.02.2026 (tomorrow). This
being the position, it is not advisable to direct the
petitioner to avail such other remedy available under law.
27. It is also noticed that the petitioner has sought
restraint order against the members of the 1st
respondent/Union. It is submitted that contract labourers
working for the petitioner are also the members of the 1st
respondent/Union.
28. Under these circumstances, only the members
of the first respondent/Union, who are working under the
petitioner either directly or through the contractor, are
restrained from holding the strike on 12.02.2026.
29. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 who
has accepted notice ably assisted the Court in a short
notice. Same is appreciated.
30. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed-in-part.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8408
HC-KAR
31. The members of 1st respondent/Union who are
working under the petitioner either directly or through a
contractor are restrained from holding the strike on
12.02.2026 as per the notice dated 24.01.2026.
32. The order shall be uploaded in the website
today itself. Hand delivery ordered.
33. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is
permitted to file vakalath in the registry within four
weeks.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
chs/brn
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1
