IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1671 /2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S GAVIAPPA & CO., NAVALUTI POWER IRON ORE MINES NO.15/142, NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE COLONY HOSPET, BELLARY-583 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI H.G. RANGANAGOUD (BY SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. THE BELLARY ZILLA GANI KARMIKARA SANGHA SHANTI NIVAS 1ST WARD, ANAND BAZAR SANDUR, BELLARY KARNATAKA -583 119 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT (BY SHRI N. KUMAR, CGC FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SHRI CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 08/04/2019 PASSED IN W.P. NO.5737/2018 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant was the second respondent before the learned Single Judge. The present second respondent was the petitioner. By filing a writ petition, the second respondent impugned the order dated 20th July 2017 passed by the Government of India declining to refer the dispute raised by the second respondent for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the order dated 20th July 2017 and directed the Central Government to reconsider the application made by the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has placed on record the order dated 4th June 2019 made by the Central Government by which, now the dispute has been referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur.
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that apart from the fact that the second respondent has no locus, the order impugned virtually directs the Central Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. He submits that, that appears from the tenor of the direction contained in paragraph 12.
6. Apart from the fact that now the impugned order has been acted upon and the petitioner can always adopt a remedy against the order dated 4th June 2019, we must note that the direction contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, by no stretch of imagination, means that there was no discretion left to the Central Government. Obviously, the direction will have to be read to mean that the Central Government was required to reconsider the application made by the second respondent for making a reference strictly in accordance with law.
7. While dealing with the issue of locus of the second respondent, the learned Single Judge has merely observed that the issue was not raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner. There is no finding on the said issue.
8. As the impugned order does not decide the issue on merits, we decline to entertain this appeal. Subject to the observations made above, the appeal is disposed of.
9. It will be always open for the appellant to challenge the order dated 4th June 2019 in accordance with law. All the contentions are kept open. If at all the appellant challenges the said order, it will be open for him to raise the objection regarding the locus of the second respondent which will be decided in accordance with law.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN