The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 3rd November 2025 in the batch of writ petitions led by WP No.40113 of 2017 marks a significant moment in Indian labour jurisprudence as applied to metro rail corporations.
At its core, the dispute was not merely about service rules or strike prohibitions, but about authority, control and the constitutional identity of metro rail undertakings in India.
The judgment speaks to workmen, administrators, trade unions and governments alike.
The Court itself sets the stage succinctly in paragraph 1 of the order:
“Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (“BMRCL”) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956(Act, 1956). BMRCL operates a metro rail network in Bengaluru. Said metro rail is popularly known as “Namma Metro” meaning thereby Our Metro.”
The affectionate reference to “Our Metro” is important. The case tested whether this metro belongs legally and administratively to the State Government of Karnataka or to the Union of India for the purposes of labour governance.
The Core Questions Before the Court
The Court identified three decisive questions in paragraph 3:
“In this batch of petitions, questions that need to be resolved are:
- Which is the “appropriate government” for BMRCL in relation to any Industrial Dispute?
- Whether the State Government under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can notify the services of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd as “Public utility service”?
- 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 an essential service?”
These questions framed every subsequent argument, counterargument, and judicial analysis.
The Union’s Challenge and the State’s Assertion
The Employees Union approached the Court challenging multiple actions by the State Government.
These included approval of Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, notifications declaring BMRCL services as essential services, and declaring BMRCL a public utility service.
The Union’s consistent case was that the State Government lacked jurisdiction since the “appropriate government” was the Central Government.
In WP No.40113 of 2017, the Union contended that:
“it could not have been approved by the authority under the State Government as the ‘Appropriate Government’ for BMRCL is the Central Government.”
On the other hand, BMRCL and the State Government asserted that Karnataka was the appropriate government since BMRCL was a joint venture with equal equity and significant State involvement.
Understanding “Appropriate Government” Under the Industrial Disputes Act
The judgment turns decisively on Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court reproduced the provision verbatim in paragraph 20:
“2(a) ‘appropriate Government’ means, in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company…”
This definition became the legal fulcrum. The Court correctly observed that Central Government jurisdiction would arise if either of the two conditions are satisfied.
First, if the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government.
Second, if the industry is carried on by a railway company.
Pervasive Control of the Central Government
A crucial portion of the judgment lies in the Court’s analysis of statutory control under the Metro Railways Acts of 1978 and 2002. After exhaustively examining the provisions, the Court concluded in paragraph 29:
“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.”
This finding is not rhetorical. It is backed by detailed statutory charts showing how appointments, safety certifications, operational permissions, fare fixation, accident inquiries and even closure of metro services all vest ultimately with the Central Government.
The Court observed in paragraph 25:
“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.”
This alone was sufficient to attract the first limb of Section 2(a)(i).
Is BMRCL a Railway Company
The second limb of the definition required the Court to answer whether BMRCL is a railway company. This issue was fiercely contested because the definition refers back to the Indian Railways Act, 1890 which has since been repealed.
The Court resolved this by relying on settled constitutional doctrine of incorporation by reference. In paragraph 34, the Court held:
“if the words and expressions of a statute are incorporated by reference in another statute, then those words and expressions of the former statute, will continue to exist in the later, even if the former is repealed.”
This principle allowed the Court to revive the definition of railway company contained in Section 3(5) of the Act of 1890.
The definition quoted in paragraph 36 reads:
“ ‘railway company’ includes any persons, whether incorporated or not, who are owners or lessees of a railway or parties to an agreement for working a railway.”
The Court then applied this definition to BMRCL and reached a straightforward conclusion in paragraph 38:
“BMRCL is the owner of Bangalore Metro rail lines. It is a Company. Thus, BMRCL becomes the owner of the ‘railway and since it is Company it becomes a ‘Railway company’.”
This reasoning is doctrinally sound and practically significant. It prevents governments from escaping labour obligations by rebranding railways as metro systems.
Consequences for State Notifications and Orders
Once the Court held that the Central Government is the appropriate government, the inevitable result followed. Notifications issued by the State Government declaring BMRCL services as essential services or public utility services were held to be without jurisdiction.
Similarly, the reference of industrial disputes by Central authorities was upheld, while the State Government’s parallel interventions were struck down.
The Court’s approach preserves federal balance by respecting parliamentary supremacy in subjects relating to railways while also protecting the collective bargaining rights of metro employees.
Significance for Metro Employees Across India
This judgment has implications far beyond Bengaluru. Metro corporations across India operate under similar joint venture models.
The reasoning adopted by the Karnataka High Court provides a template for determining labour jurisdiction uniformly.
It ensures that employees of metro rail corporations are not left in a grey zone where neither State nor Central labour protections apply decisively.
Conclusion
This judgment is an example of careful statutory interpretation, constitutional fidelity and sensitivity to labour rights. The Court resisted administrative convenience and instead followed legislative intent and constitutional structure.
In reaffirming that BMRCL is both under the authority of the Central Government and a railway company, the Court restored clarity to an area clouded by overlapping jurisdictions.
For advocates, trade unions and policymakers, this judgment will serve as a guiding precedent in resolving future disputes involving metro rail corporations and labour governance.
It reinforces that “Our Metro” is not just a civic utility but a railway in the eyes of law, governed by Central legislation and protected by national labour frameworks.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
WP_40113_2017
