North East Karnataka Road Trnasport ... vs The Prl. Secretary Transport ... on 5 June, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

North East Karnataka Road Trnasport ... vs The Prl. Secretary Transport ... on 5 June, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                         -1-




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
            CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

     DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

        WRIT PETITION No.101250/2013(GM-KSR)

BETWEEN:

NORTH-EAST KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SC/ST,
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
GANAPA;THI GOLA AGE: 47 YEARS,
R/O PLOT NO.202, CIB COLONY,
BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
GULBARGA.
                                     ..PETITIONER
( BY SRI: P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND

1.    THE PRL. SECRETARY
      TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
      M.S.BUILDING,
      BANGALORE-560001.

2.    THE KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
      THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      SHANTI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560001.
                              -2-




3.   NORTH-EAST KARNATAKA
     ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
     THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     SARIGE SADANA, MAIN ROAD,
     GULBARGA-585101.

4.   THE KSRTC SC/ST OFFICERS
     & EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
     REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES,
     REGISTRATION ACT,
     THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
     NO.23, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR,
     KSRTC QUARTERS, SHANTINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560001.
                                  ..RESPONDENTS

     ( BY SRI: MANVENDRA REDDY, GOVT ADVOCATE,
       FOR R-1,
       SRI: VEERESH .B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2,
       SRI: AMARESH .S. ROJA, ADVOCATGE FOR R-3.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE   A   WRIT   OF   MANDAMUS,          DIRECTING   THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 CORPORATION NOT TO CALL OR
INVOLVE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ASSOCIATION IN THE
METTING     INSOFAR     AS         SC/ST   EMPLOYEES   OF
RESPONDENT NO.3 CORPORATION IS CONCERNED.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-




                             ORDER

Petitioner claiming to be a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 2001 having membership of employees belonging to Scheduled caste and schedule tribe of North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga, alleges that after the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was constituted into four different corporations during the year 2010, for collective bargaining, insofar as scheduled caste and scheduled tribe employees concerned, it is the petitioner-Union which has been espousing the cause of its members and therefore except for the petitioner-Union none of the other unions have a right to espouse the cause of the employees. The collective bargaining with the 3rd respondent, it is said, cannot but be with the petitioner-Union and therefore, the 3rd respondent is disentitled to notify the 4th respondent-trade union for negotiation. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 4th respondent has -4- neither locus-standi nor authority of law to participate in the negotiation insofar welfare of scheduled caste and schedule tribe employees in the 3rd respondent industry. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

" a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 Corporation not to call or involve the Respondent No.4 association in the meeting insofar as SC/ST employees of Respondent No.3 Corporation is concerned.

b) consequently, issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to call only the petitioner for negotiations insofar as SC/ST employees of Respondent No.3 Corporation is concerned.

c) Issue any other writ of order as deemed fit by the Hon'ble court in the interest of justice."

2. Petitioner has invoked the public law remedy to injunct the 4th respondent-trade union from discharging its trade union activities under the Trade Union Act, 1926. So also petitioner seeks to issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to call the petitioner alone for negotiation and collective -5- bargaining. In my considered opinion, petitioner is not entitled to either of the reliefs.

3. The Code of Discipline as ratified by all central employers and workers organization on the 16th session of Indian Labour Conference held on 19.5.1958 and which came into force from 1.6.1958, provides for recognition of trade unions in States, where no Rules or statutes provide for recognition of trade unions. The competent authority under the Code of Discipline alone is required to remedy the grievance over recognition of trade unions as sole bargaining agents. The implementation machinery under the Code of Conduct is one which the petitioners could have invoked and not come rushing to this court invoking public law remedy.

Petition devoid of merit is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

ln.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court