Karnataka High Court
M/S Itd Cemindia Jv vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
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,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI ... PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.11.20
12:48:32 +0530
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BANGALORE MRTRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. LABOUR OFFICER,
DIVISION-3, BANGALORE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANGALORE-560 029.
4. UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(METRO RAIL CELL), NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(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)
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 1ST RESPONDENT-
STATE 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 3RD
RESPONDENT AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.12.2019
MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON THE LETTER DATED
03.12.2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P.) BY ISSUE OF A
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR FURTHER HEARING ON 11TH AUGUST, 2025, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
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.
2. 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').
3. The petitioner has assailed, the Notification No.
KAYI 139 LWA 2017 dated 18.11.2019 by 1st respondent -
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
State Government notifying BMRCL services as an
'essential service'.
4. The petitioner has undertaken the construction
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.
5. The petitioner-Company has also obtained
licence under the Act, 1970 for construction of certain
stretch of elevated structure for BMRCL in Bengaluru.
6. The petitioner- Company is also registered
under Sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, 1996.
7. 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
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition),
Central Rules, 1971.
8. The petitioner has assailed the endorsement
dated 03.12.2019, issued by 3rd 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.
9. 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.
10. Thus, the following question arises:
(i) Which is the "appropriate Government" for the
petitioner in relation to work undertaken for BMRCL?
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
11. The respondent-State and BMRCL have raised a
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.
12. Sri P S Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner raised the following contentions:
(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.
(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
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
be a railway company as defined under the Act,
1947.
(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.
(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.
(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
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
reference in Section 2(o) of the Act, 1947 and sub-
section (2) of Section 2 of Metro Railways
(Construction of Works) Act, (for short 'Act, 1978').
(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.
13. Sri S.Santosh Narayan, learned counsel for the
BMRCL raised the following contentions:
(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
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
Appropriate Government for only those companies
referred to in Section 2(a)(i).
(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.
(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.
(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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
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.
(v) The Act, 1989 which defines the "railway" specifically
excludes the tramway.
(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.
(vii) BMRCL is governed under the provisions of Act, 2002
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.
(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.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
The said definition excludes tramway and does not
include metro railway, as such, BMRCL is not a
"railway company".
(ix) The Act, 2002 being a Special Legislation, Act, 1890
which is repealed by Act, 1989 cannot prevail over
the Special Legislation.
(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.
(xi) In Writ Petition No.16187/2009 in M/s Logwell
Forge Ltd. vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
Limited1, the Court has held that the Government of
Karnataka has substantial control over BMRCL.
(xii) In Writ Appeal No.3529/2009, the Court has held
that the State Government has substantial control
over BMRCL.
(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.
14. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.
Santosh Gogi, appearing for the State raised the following
contentions:
(i) BMRCL is the joint venture of the Government of
Karnataka and Government of India each having
50% stake in the BMRCL
(ii) The Board of Directors of BMRCL comprises:
1
ILR 2010 Kar 87
2
WP.No.12931/2019
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
1. Hon'ble Chief Minister of GOK
2. Hon'ble Minister of State of Bengaluru City Development,
3. Chief Secretary to the GOK,
4. Principal Secretary to GOK (Finance Department),
5. Chairman, BDA,
6. Secretary to Government Housing and Urban
Development Department,
7. Commissioner Bengaluru City Corporation,
8. Managing Director, Karnataka Urban Infrastructure
Development and Finance Corporation,
9. Special Officer, Mass Rapid Transit System.
(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.
(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;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
(v) The Act, 1989 defines railway in Section 2(31) and
the definition of railway excludes the tramway. Thus,
the metro rail which is similar to a tramway cannot
be a railway company.
(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;
(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.
(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.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
(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.
(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.
(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
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
the Central Government in the operation, running
and maintenance of metro railway;
(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.
15. Learned Counsel Sri. M.N Kumar for the Union
of India would urge the following points:
(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.
(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.
(iii) BMRCL is registered as Principal Employer with the
Central Government under Section 7 of the Act, 1970
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
indicating jurisdiction of authorities under the
Legislation passed by the Parliament.
(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.
(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.
(vi) Phase-II of Bangalore Metro Railway is approved by
the Central Government in exercise of power under
the Act, 1978 and Act, 2002.
(vii) The Committee constituted by the Central
Government is involved in payment of wages,
inspections, compliance and grievance redressal.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
(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".
(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.
16. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
17. 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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
appropriate Government as found in Section 2(a) of the
Act, 1947.
18. This Court has decided the aforementioned
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".
19. 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:
"2(1)(a) "appropriate government" means,-
(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;
(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;
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
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;"
20. 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.
21. 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
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
referred to above. Hence, the petitioner is carrying on the
work on behalf of BMRCL in respect of aforementioned
elevated metro rail project.
22. 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.
23. 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.
Relevant portion of Section 2(n) of Act, 1947 reads
as under
2(n) " Public utility service" means-
i. Any railway service or any transport service for
the carriage of passengers or goods by air
ii. xxx
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
(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.
xxx
24. The first entry in the First Schedule in the Act,
1947 reads as under:
'1. Transport (other than railways) for the carriage
of passengers or goods by land or water'.
(Emphasis supplied)
First schedule to the Act, 1947 does not include railway.
Rather, it specifically excludes railway.
25. Section 2(n)(vi) provides that appropriate
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
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
State Government has no power to issue Notification in
respect of Railway.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Hence the following:
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45713
WP No. 3273 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2019 marked at Annexure-G, issued by 1st respondent is quashed.
(iii) The impugned endorsement dated 03.12.2019 marked at Annexure-F is quashed.
(iv) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1