- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE BENGALURU METRO RAIL EMPLOYEES UNION (REG) 374/1, 2ND 'A' CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 094, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SAGAR .S, AGED: 33 YEARS, S/O SEKAR K, RESIDING AT 374/1, 2ND 'A' CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 094. PH NO:9739852733 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYADEVAIAH J.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR K.H ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, (PH NO: 080 22969202, 808-22969203) 2. THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 EMPLOYMENT, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001 3. THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (METRO RAIL CELL), NIRMAN BHAVAN ,NEW DELHI-110 001 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001 5. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SADAN, 3RD MAIN,3RD CROSS II PHASE ,YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022 6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SADAN, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS II PHASE, YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH NARAYAN .S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. KUMAR.M.N, CGSC FOR R2-R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.2783/2023(L-RES) OR GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2783/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Jayadevaiah J.M for the appellant, the learned counsel Sri. Santhosh Narayan. S for respondent No.1 and the learned CGSC Sri. Kumar. M.N. for respondent Nos.2 to 6. 3. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed in para No.5 as under: "5. Suffice it to note that the first respondent - BMRCL is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a special purpose vehicle – A Joint Venture of both State Government and Central Government – for establishing, operating and maintaining a rapid transit rail system in and around Bangalore so as to meet the urban transport needs of Bangalore. Its affairs are controlled by the State Government. The day to day activities are carried out by the Board consisting of the Chairman, Managing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 Director and other Directors. Government of Karnataka is the appropriate Government for BMRCL. It is stated that the petitioner - Bengaluru Metro Rail Employees Union vide letter dated:24.02.2021 sought for recognition of their Union. The petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction to accord recognition to the Union. It is pivotal to note that the recognition of Union is not regulated by any statutory provision in the State of Karnataka; recognition unless granted in terms of a statutory provision cannot create any enforceable right in the Union. In the absence of any statutory provision, the petitioner cannot enforce any right of recognition against the Management by filing a Writ Petition. Furthermore, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not make any provision for recognition of Trade Union as a matter of right. Needless to say that recognition depends on the discretion of the employer which cannot be imposed by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the law is well settled by this Court in the case of WORKMEN OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., VS. MANAGEMENT OF THE KAMPLI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1566. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected." 4. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that, in the absence of any statutory provision, the appellant cannot enforce any right of recognition against the Management by filing a writ petition. This aspect is settled by the *Madras High Court in the judgment of K.V. Sridharan and Ors Vs. S. Sundaramoorthy and Ors reported in MANU/TN/1360/2008 in para No.5 of the judgment, which reads as under: "5. We, therefore, hold that all disputes relating to holding of election of such incorporated bodies, which are nothing but private bodies, cannot be challenged before the writ court. If there are disputes between the parties over such election, those disputes can be challenged, if so advised, before the appropriate civil court. Since we are of the view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, this Court is of the opinion that no order can be passed in the writ petition on the dispute relating to the election of such trade union. It may be noted in this connection that these private bodies are not enforcing any statutory direction by filing such writ petitions inasmuch in the State of Tamil Nadu, there *Correct vide court order dated : 14.11.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29136-DB WA No. 532 of 2024 is no law relating to grant of recognition to a trade union, nor is there any law relating to holding of election of such trade unions. These matters are covered by general law and as such, the disputes in this regard should be settled by civil court." 5. Applying the findings of the *Madras High Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the same. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 *Correct vide court order dated : 14.11.2025