State Govt Has No Competence To Notify Services Of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd: Karnataka High Court Quashes BMRCL Employees Rules

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014, holding that the State Government has no competence to notify services of BMRCL.

The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions out of which one was filed by the BMRCL Employees Union, praying to quash the said 2014 Rules by declaring the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, malafide, capricious, and unsustainable.

A Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held, “The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited is a Railway company within the meaning of “Railway company” as defined in Section 2(a)(i) r/w Section 2(o) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. … Under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government has no competence to notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as Public Utility Service.”

The Bench added that the State Government has no competence to notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as essential service under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2013.

Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal appeared for the Petitioners, while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Santosh Gogi, CGC M.N. Kumar, and Advocate S. Santosh Narayan appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

BMRCL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which operates a metro rail network in Bengaluru. The said metro rail is popularly known as “Namma Metro” meaning thereby “Our Metro”. The BMRCL Employees Union claimed that the Central Government is the “appropriate government”. Whereas, the BMRCL and State contended that the State Government is the “appropriate government”. In the batch of Petitions, questions that were required to be resolved were –

(i) Which is the “appropriate government” for BMRCL in relation to any Industrial Dispute?

(ii) Whether the State Government under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) can notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as “Public utility service”?

(iii) Whether the State Government under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2013, can notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as essential service?

Court’s Observations

In view of the above issues, the High Court observed, “… the Court is of the view that over BMRCL - the Central Government has pervasive control and the State Government plays second fiddle to the Central Government.”

The Court was of the view that the Central Government is the “Appropriate Government” for two reasons –

(i) the Central Government has pervasive control over the BMRCL;

(ii) BMRCL is a “Railway company” as defined under Section 2(o) of IDA read with Section 3(5) of Indian Railways Act, 1890 (IRA).

The Court said that the contention that BMRCL is a company registered under the Companies Act and does not come under the definition of railway company is not supported by any provision of law.

“The definition of the appropriate Government in the Act, 1970 provides that the “appropriate Government” in relation to an establishment in respect of which the Appropriate Government under the Act, 1947 is the Central Government, the Central Government. Since, BMRCL is a “Railway company” under Section 2(o) of Act, 1947 for BMRCL the appropriate government would be the Central Government”, it noted.

The Court explained that to issue notification under Section 2(n)(vi) of IDA, in respect of any industry specified in the First Schedule, the Government issuing the notification must be the ‘appropriate Government’ for that industry and since State Government is not the appropriate Government for BMRCL the Notification issued by the State Government is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.

“Once, the Act, 1947 is held to be applicable, then the Railway company has to be understood with reference to Section 2(o) of Act, 1947 which in turn refers to the definition of railway company as found in Section 3(5) of Act, 1890. In that view of the matter, there has to be an Appropriate Government for BMRCL as well and same has to be decided with reference to Act, 1947. Thus, the contention that the Act, 1978 and Act, 2002 being special enactments override the provisions of Act, 1947 cannot be accepted”, it held.

The Court remarked that the contention that the State Government has control over the matters relating to acquisition of land and maintenance and operation do not confer the State Government the primacy over the Central Government when it comes to key decisions in establishing, running and maintaining the metro railway cannot be accepted, as the provisions of law in the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 reveal pervasive control of the Central Government.

The Court further held that BMRCL is predominantly carried by the authority of the Central Government and it is a ‘Railway company’ as defined in Section 2(o) of IDA.

“… this Court is of the view that the Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’ for BMRCL. … The petitioner - Union in Writ Petition No.40113/2007 has assailed the BMRCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014 on the premise that the same could not have been certified by the authorities under the State Government. Hence, same is quashed”, it ordered.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court restrained the State Government from granting any exemption under Section 14 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to the Company from the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

“The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014 is quashed. … The Central Government Industrial Tribunal shall proceed to adjudicate the reference”, it also directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the notification declaring the services of the BMRCL as public utility services.

Cause Title- Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Employees Union & Ors. v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:44259)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal and Advocate Ashwini Rajgopal.

Respondents: AAG Santosh Gogi, CGC M.N. Kumar, AGA Manjunath B., and Advocate S. Santosh Narayan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment