I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1631 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
PRESENT
THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE VGOPALA _
AND
THE HON'BLE DLJUSTICE
WRIT APPEAL Nos.3299'-3300 it
BEWVEEN:
1. Sri P.N.Munirathna_1--n§'-- _
Aged about 57 years, D g
S / 0 late Periappa Rec'.d.y;*V. '
Residing at..1\:Q'.2.6/£3, _ _
garwg' Cross, 'V
Parimala "
Naridin_i Lay::n,1.1_;.''', '' . _'
Bangaloreé 560. . H V» ' "
2. Sri ManDé:he"G0wdDa,,
Aged about" ye afs,
A 0 :1-ateVv%_Gundai-ah;
. ' xResiCiing N0. 1 1,
A % 1 ..J;'C.Nagar,
' ~_ "1':/Iah£t1é1Eksh;niipura1n,
N I3anga%}Cr_e;D560 096. ...APPELLANTS
" iv ' ~ _ ' (Sri VI Igkshminmayana, Adv.)
The State of Kamataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Energr Department
Vikas Soudha,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Bangaiore-560 O0 1.
\K\/
953'
Ex)
Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited
Kaveri Bhavan.
Bangalore~5BO 009,
Represented by its
Managing Director.
. The Managing Director,
BESCOM.
K.R.Circ1e,
Banga1ore~5BO 002.
T he Managing Director,
MESCOM, V p_
Mangalore. to
. The ManagingV'D'ireeto'r; V
GESCOM, '
G1,t1baI':'3?°*i'§t it C »
KPTC ~smpioyee.s.?_ Union, ~
Regd. No.A6'5.Q _'A'?.Station Compound
Amanda 'Rao C.i;'rz:.le- _ " p '
Banga1ore-56'Q ooo, "
Represented by_its_
General Secretary. '
sr: Nlfflagaraj,
,' o "iatef M, Munivenkatappa.
._ 'Aged' years
' Working as Assistant Executive
Engineer" (Electrical),
BE'S_C'OM. Corporation,
" rI§.R.Circ1e,
x _pB:angalore--56O O02.
. . . RESPONDENTS
(Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy. Sr.Counse1 for R7'. Srnt.Asha
'M.Kum'oarag'irimath, HCGP for R1)
This WA is flied under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in
the writ petition No.1800~1801/2009 dated 24.04.2009.
\/
This WA coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, G-OPALA GOWDA, J. delivered the foliowingz
JUDGMENT
The correctness of the order of the learned:tsinglefli 0′
Judge dated 24th April 2009 pdssédian’0.iw.;r$§i§rd._ise09002
1801/ 2009 in dismissing the writ’i__p’etitiondnoniinatidng0′
the 791 respondent herein of. the the
Directors of the 2110* 00e00gi’1<drndtakd'd Power
Transmission Corporation'i,i1n'ited called as
"KPTCL" in appeal urging
various single Judge after
advertizjyigdddtot _th0eWriVa1 legal contentions
urged o'n..V_g4behai._f; "Jparties, the definition of
"worlgrnan" under"$ect'ion 2(s] of the Industrial Disputes
Ar'ti_c1e of the Constitution of India
dregarfdingd'~VWor}i'ers Participation in Management of
it _ Indu'stri'es,'v':"" referring to clause 30(1)[a) of the
it0.'-44"'g..r,.§/ieznorandum of Articles of association of the KPTCL,
-0 hasdregected the legal contentions urged on behalf of the
“a§5pe11ants herein and affirxned the nomination of the
seventh respondent, KPTCL by recording reasons. The
Correctness of the same ioned in this appeal
inviting our attention to Article 43A of the Constitution
of India which reads thus:
“The State shall take steps, by suitab_1e.::’~.._4d_i’~._
legislation or in any other way to secure;”thef_~
participation of the workers in
management of unde’rta1%<ii1§s, V I
establishments or other'; }j_Argani2:–a'tio:ns
engaged in any industry_'*;~–.
2. The learned oounsei’ -..i”\_:r1.r’.V,Lakshminarayana
submits that the single JJ_’ud’ge§3has–4′ “considered the
effect of Article of ifionstitutdionof India which states
that workers’ participation by way of
nomination’ of management of the
indirrstriesii’—._’i”nepi”-joard management of the KPTCL is
“”~..Vreq.nir.ed_gp’ to rrianage its affairs for its effective
rthe interest of public. The seventh
respondentisiineither a workmannor a supervisor of the
therefore his nomination as Director of the
of Management is not iegai and vaiid. The
hvvcreation of a post of Working President by the
Employees Union and coopting him as member is not
provided under Ruie i1(d} [ix] of the Karnataka Power
\/
Transmission Corporation Employees Union Rules and
Regulations. Therefore, cooption of the seventh
respondent as a member of the Union and
as an office bearer of the Union as provided’ ‘
clause (:1 to (viii) of Rule 11(;at1″dfer« the mes :_andH”‘.
Regulations of the Union is totallyVéiinpermisstblpev in
it is submitted by the learnedeotlnsell”on”behalf the
appellants that in ‘woriier’ being
mentioned under clause -‘thhefniernorandum of
articles of constitutional
definitionof referred to therein
shall be’-.gi’v§<;n efreet::te,f"le-air the same shail be read into
clause 30(ul}'{a} 'n.otwitIf1standing the challenge to the said
the Mxemorandum of Articles of Association.
"the matter has not been taken into
by the learned single Judge while
7..«,_’*.examining the correctness of the creation of the post of
President by the Union in exercise of its power
,…j.A:g”.gu_rider Rule 11(d][ix) of the Union and coopting the
V’ seventh respondent as a member of the union in
invoking its power under Rule ll[c] is totally
\\/i
impermissible in law. Therefore, the State government
has not properly considered the above legal aspec.ts–.»at
the time of nomination of seventh respondent ” V.
the Board of Directors of KPTCL repre_senting=
workers by exarnining Article
and the clause 30[1)[a) of the.4_Memorandum–“‘–rJtArticglelsi A
of Association of the Corpcr_ati.on. the
impugned order is
vitiated in law. is not
considered examining
the Hence this writ
appeal Court to set aside the
order impiignevdgllinlAthis.:_ll~~’iappeal and quash the order
v in the”writ..petition.
leai’ned senior counsel Sri D.L.Nanjunda
V dd _ Recldy, has’ sought to justify the order impugned in the
.i,.:\:2vri.t_.4petition and also the order of the learned single
.l contending that the State Government is
” ernpowered to exercise its power to nominate or appoint
the Directors and the Board sf Directors of the KPTCL
including the office bearer of the employees union to
\i/
the State Government as one of the Board of Directors
of the KPTCL is rightly upheld by the learned single
Judge by adverting to the rival legal contentio_nsV_fa_:nd
recording Valid reasons, the same cannot be ter.re.edv…_.’r.
either as erroneous or error in laW;.».hence_’he’ ‘has. F5133-.eelr.v ” ”
for dismissal of this appeal as :”t.he:._A_’o*r’ders_”i:rnpt1gi’1eVdT[
either in this appeal or wrif<rP§titio'11i_'do' * it
interference by this Court in"*'e.§:ercise of"its. appellate
jurisdiction and power. 'A
4. it said rival legal
contentions: counsel on behalf of
the parties,4’we our mind to the provisions
of rules aiidgglrelgulations of the union with reference
l}(a) the memorandum of Articles of
KPTCL and also Article 43A of the
V . Constitution’. With a View to appreciate the above legai
kl’A4l–.::ccntenti’ons and find out as to whether the impugned
-‘ challenged in this writ appeal is vitiated either on
” “the ground of erroneous reasoning or error in law? and
(ii) what order’? \/
5. The aforesaid points are to be answered against
the appellants and in favour of the seventh respondent
and the first respondent State GoVernrnent.g.._for”‘ftheV
following reasons:
There is no need for us to elaborately
relevant provisions of Employees z:n.:o°n._ or loft
Constitution of India andlllelaiise 3(:}(‘l}-l(.a} lflofm the
Memorandum of ArticleL_s”‘0f gr theK13″rcL for
the reasons that the Judge has
elaborately “order, While dealing
with the ri\lzAalvl.j’l.egal.lplooritentionsl urged by the learned
counsel in.__the We have gone through the
reasoning portiondof the learned single Judge on the
I V that arose for his consideration. The
has taken pains to refer to the
_ factual V-poslltion, the rival legal contentious and
it ,ner:ee_ssary relevant constitutional provisions, Rules and
Regulations of the Employees Union. The Rules and
“Regulations and clause 30(l)(a} of the Memorandum of
it Articles of Association of the KPTCL and correctly
interpreted and examined ower of the State
10
Government, keeping in View clause 30{1}{a) of the
Memorandum of Articles of Association. As riglitly
pointed out by the learned counsel V.Lakshminara.:ya:ia”‘
on behalf of the appellants that the seventh”re.spondent*’–.’
is not a Worker therefore his parti:j::’ipatior1″in the_.:e’l.ecVtion
of the Employees Union to norriinatepvlhirm ‘oi
Directors representing of not
permissible in law and of the
constitutional mandate of the
Constitution submitted that
creating”th;3–…post.;_::pot” as per the Rules
and l to coopt him as the
seventh revspondent rnember of the union cannot be
Ethel'”c0.I1.stitutiona1 definition is the law
%.i”¢-M £>’%.3l:\>:£C%v\»a~i~ fit.
the largeri Bench judgment in
KEsHAvA§i;atipA B!-IARATI Vs. STATE 01%’ KERALA
“reported ‘in AIR 1973 SC 1461 as well as SYNTHETICS
‘t?lja;tc”:mM1cAL LTD. Vs. STATE or map. reported in AIR
1990 SC 1927. This aspect of the matter is neither
considered by the State G t nor examined by
the learned single Judge at the time of passing the
impugned order.
6. We have also examined this legal aspect,’
matter very carefully. The object of
Constitution is that it has to give reprejse’ntatio:n
workers in the Board of Managernlentof
The definition of worker gsaild’-.
provision must be that who
can represent the for better
management_ liii” the interest of
public common goal of the
Constitutiori :ha+:_£;§¢1r;1ajie:i’ai resource shall be for the
conirrionggpgoodprotrided under Article 39 (b) of the
Constitiitian India. The power corporation is material
resourcev .nthe’refore it has to sub–serve the common
_ good, Whiclli is the constitutional philosophy as
it _e11V,isaged: under the above provision of the Constitution.
V If the argument of the learned counsel for the
it appellant that the seventh respondent is not a Workman
and therefore he could not have been nominated by the
‘l<\«/
satisfied that the State Government, after applying its
mind has exercised its power under clause 30(4l)g(a)r"of
the Memorandum of Articles of Associa..tion'« _
nominated seventh respondent as "one of 'thve:_E'~oard* loft.' "
Directors by giving representation to"rt1r1e'iwo'rkers:'anéi1;_'
that has been affirmed by single bir
recording reasons in are"inV._Agrevspectfu1
agreement with the the learned
single Judge in_t;he_ foregoing
reasons, if whatsoever to
interfere w*1t'l~1~ single Judge,
hence the appeal.
Accordingly appeal is lldisinissed.
Sd/-
FUDGE
Sd/w
JUDGE