The High Court of Karnataka has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries for challenging illegal strikes during conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Court held that while writ petitions against trade unions are generally not maintainable, aggrieved employers may approach Industrial Tribunals for limited relief to enforce statutory prohibitions against strikes during conciliation.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioner, Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt Ltd., is a private company engaged in manufacturing automotive electronics components in Bengaluru since 2009. The respondent, Robert Bosch Automotive Electronics Employees Union, is a registered trade union under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Key Facts
- The Union issued a strike notice on 23.02.2026, proposing a strike commencing on or after 09.03.2026.
- The petitioner filed a representation with the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 23.02.2026, triggering conciliation proceedings.
- The Conciliation Officer issued a notice directing parties to appear for conciliation on 03.03.2026, which was adjourned to 06.03.2026 and subsequently to 10.03.2026.
- The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 09.03.2026, seeking to restrain the Union from proceeding with the strike.
- The Court granted an ex parte interim order restraining the Union from proceeding with the strike.
Procedural History
- 23.02.2026: Union issued strike notice; petitioner filed representation with Deputy Labour Commissioner.
- 03.03.2026: Conciliation proceedings commenced before Conciliation Officer.
- 09.03.2026: Writ petition filed before Karnataka High Court.
- 27.04.2026: Writ petition reserved for orders.
- 24.07.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that:
- Section 62(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 prohibits strikes during conciliation proceedings.
- Section 63 declares such strikes illegal.
- The petitioner cannot approach the Tribunal during pending conciliation, making the writ petition the only remedy.
- The Union is bound by statutory provisions and a writ petition is maintainable to enforce statutory rights.
The respondent Union contended that:
- A writ of certiorari cannot be issued against a trade union as it is not a court, tribunal, or administrative body discharging public duties.
- The dispute is an industrial dispute under the Code, 2020, which provides a statutory forum for resolution.
- The right to strike is a statutory right under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Code, 2020.
The Legal Issue
The Court framed two central questions:
- Whether an industrial establishment can maintain a writ petition to restrain a strike by workers’ Union during conciliation proceedings on the ground that the proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020?
- Whether an aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Code, 2020 challenging the legality of a proposed strike when conciliation proceedings are pending?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on several judgments to argue that the writ petition is maintainable:
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Petroleum Employees Union and Others: Held that a strike during conciliation proceedings is prohibited under Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Petroleum & Gas Workers Union CITU Office and Others: Similar reasoning applied.
- Workers of The Industry Colliery, Dhanbad v. Management of The Industry Colliery: Held that illegal strikes can be challenged after adjudication, but did not address writ jurisdiction during conciliation.
The petitioner further argued that the Union is bound by the Code, 2020 and a writ petition is maintainable to enforce statutory rights and prevent violations of statutory provisions.
For the Respondent
The respondent Union argued:
- A writ of certiorari cannot be issued against a trade union as it is not a public body or instrumentality of the State.
- The dispute is an industrial dispute under the Code, 2020, which provides a statutory remedy.
- The right to strike is a statutory right under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Code, 2020.
The Union relied on S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. to argue that a writ petition is maintainable only where a public duty is imposed by statute. The Union also relied on T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another to argue that certiorari lies only against judicial or quasi-judicial orders.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It noted that the Union is a private body and does not discharge any public duty or function. The Court relied on S. Shobha, which held that a writ petition may be maintainable against a private body only where a public duty is imposed by statute. The Court observed:
"A body, public or private, should not be categorized as 'amenable' or 'not amenable' to writ jurisdiction. The most important and vital consideration should be the 'function' test as regards the maintainability of a writ application. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The Court held that the Union does not qualify as a body discharging public duty. It further held that statutory obligations alone do not equate to public duties.
The Court then examined whether the petitioner could approach the Tribunal during conciliation proceedings. It noted that Section 97 of the Code, 2020 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters to which the Code applies. The Court observed:
"From the tenor and tone of Section 97 of the Code, 2020, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly excluded in respect of matters to which the provisions of the Code apply."
The Court held that the petitioner cannot approach the Civil Court seeking an injunction in respect of the proposed strike governed by the Code, 2020. However, the Court recognized a limited jurisdiction for the Tribunal to enforce the statutory prohibition under Section 62(1)(d) during conciliation proceedings.
The Court held that Section 53(6) of the Code, 2020 does not bar the Tribunal from adjudicating the legality of a strike proposed during conciliation proceedings. The Court observed:
"If the Court is to take the view that the aggrieved party cannot approach the Tribunal to enforce the statutory right under Sections 62(1)(d) and 63 of the Code, 2020, then such an interpretation would rob both provisions of their essence and efficacy. Such an interpretation has to be avoided, instead the purposive and harmonious interpretation which aim at protecting the statutory right should be preferred."
The Court held that the Tribunal may pass appropriate orders to give effect to the prohibition under Section 62(1)(d) during conciliation proceedings and for the statutory period of seven days after their conclusion. The Court observed:
"The limited jurisdiction to be exercised by the Tribunal in such a situation shall be available only during the period of prohibition contemplated under Section 62(1)(d) of the Code, 2020."
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court held:
- Writ petitions against trade unions are generally not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
- Aggrieved parties may approach the Industrial Tribunal for limited relief to enforce the prohibition under Section 62(1)(d) during conciliation proceedings.
- The Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to the question of whether the proposed or continuing strike violates Section 62(1)(d) and shall not adjudicate the merits of the substantive industrial dispute.
- The interim order restraining the strike shall be excluded from the period prescribed under Section 62 of the Code, 2020.
- All contentions relating to the merits of the substantive industrial dispute remain open.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Unions Is Narrowly Construed
- Writ petitions against private trade unions are not maintainable unless the union discharges a public duty or function.
- Statutory obligations alone do not suffice to attract writ jurisdiction.
- The Court emphasized the 'function test' under S. Shobha to determine maintainability.
Tribunals Have Limited Jurisdiction During Conciliation
- Industrial Tribunals under the Code, 2020 have jurisdiction to enforce statutory prohibitions against strikes during conciliation proceedings.
- The Tribunal may pass protective orders to enforce Section 62(1)(d) but cannot adjudicate the merits of the substantive industrial dispute.
- Such jurisdiction is co-extensive with the duration of the statutory prohibition and ceases upon expiry of the prohibition period.
Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted First
- Aggrieved parties must first approach the Tribunal for enforcement of statutory rights under the Code, 2020.
- Writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
- The Court emphasized the importance of statutory remedies in maintaining industrial peace and avoiding legislative gaps.
