BMRCL is a rail company, under Central authority in context of Industrial Disputes Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Government had notified the BMRCL as a public utility service under the Industrial Disputes Act and as an ‘Essential Service’ under the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act.

The order stated that the state government’s control over BMRCL was secondary to the Centre, which has “pervasive” control over it. (File Photo)

The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) would count as a body under the Central authority for matters pertaining to the Industrial Disputes Act, the Karnataka High Court ruled on November 3. The order, passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde, stated that the state government’s control over BMRCL was secondary to the Centre, which has “pervasive” control over it.

Several petitions were dealt with in this case, involving the BMRCL Employees Union and the Centre, challenging state government notifications listing the BMRCL as a public utility service under the Industrial Disputes Act and as an ‘Essential Service’ under the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act.

While the state argued that the Centre could not be the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act as it does not have 51 per cent ownership in BMRCL, the court did not accept this contention. It stated that the Central Government would count as an appropriate Government, as the BMRCL is a railway company and not a public utility service, and because the Central Government has “pervasive control” over BMRCL.

Story continues below this ad

Among several reasons supporting the former point, the bench stated, “BMRCL which came into existence in the year 2005 pursuant to registration under the Act, 1956 makes a reference to the definition of ‘railway company’ as defined in Act, 1890 (Railway Act). It is to be noticed that when the company was registered in 2005, the Act, 1890 was repealed by the Act, 1989. Nevertheless, the Memorandum of Association makes reference to the definition of a ‘railway company’ as defined in Act, 1890.”

It also stated that the state government “played second fiddle” in several aspects of controlling BMRCL compared to the Central Government, explaining, “It is indeed true that the State Government which has 50% shareholding like the Central Government, has certain significant roles to play in BMRCL. However, the final say in key administrative actions is that of the Central Government and the State Government has to take approvals or concurrence from the Central Government in certain crucial administrative decisions.”

The challenged notifications were subsequently struck down by the high court.