Terming strike prima facie illegal, Karnataka High Court warns trade union leaders of contempt action for disobeying order
Terming the strike as prima facie illegal as it was violative of the provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) in force and that the police can arrest the workers on strike, the Court said that the trade unions 'cannot hold the public for ransom' and the public can't be inconvenienced in this manner.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi made these observations during the hearing of a PIL petition, which has complained about the hardship caused to the public due to a strike call given by the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of various trade unions of the States' public transport corporations.
Obeyed in Bengaluru
However, an advocate, representing the KSRTC Workers and Staff Union, said that in Bengaluru city, 98% buses were operated on August 5 as the court's order was duly obeyed, but the strike continued in several remote areas of the State due to the communication gap in conveying the court's order to put the strike on old.
Earlier, the State Advocate General said that the strike had severely affected the public as only 30-40% buses were operating in the State as the trade unions continued the strike despite the court's interim order of staying the strike for a day to know the outcome of the negotiations that were under way.
Separate notices
Further hearing on the petition has been adjourned till August 7, while ordering the issue of separate notices to all the trade unions of the transport corporations, which are part of the JAC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cites ‘worst order' as it takes HC judge off criminal matters
The Supreme Court has directed that an Allahabad High Court judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and made to sit with a seasoned senior judge to understand the nuances of law, after finding his recent ruling to be one of the 'worst and most erroneous' orders encountered by the top court. The unusual direction, issued by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in a criminal matter where the high court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case based on what the apex court termed as a purely civil dispute. 'We are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court... The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' said the bench in its order on Monday, expressing grave dismay over the judge's conduct. It wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. 'Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' stated the bench. The top court went on to direct the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present 'criminal determination' from the judge, and ensure he does not handle any criminal jurisdiction henceforth. 'We direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,' the bench ordered. Justice Kumar will retire in May 2029. It also urged the high court chief justice to assign the judge to sit on a division bench with a senior judge to guide him. 'The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' stated the order. 'We have been constrained to issue directions…keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time,' noted the court, indicating a pattern of concern regarding the judge's decisions. The court's directions, notably removing a sitting High Court judge from an entire category of judicial work, are rare and underscore the gravity with which the bench viewed the matter. The judgment came in an appeal against an order passed by Justice Kumar in May 2025, rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case. The dispute arose after Lalita Textiles, a small business, filed a criminal complaint against another firm, alleging non-payment of ₹7.23 lakh for supplied thread. Although a significant portion of the ₹52.34 lakh invoice had been paid, a balance remained unpaid. Lalita Textiles first attempted to register a first information report, but the police declined, stating it was a civil matter. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint, invoking Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), which led to issuance of summons by a magistrate. The other firm, M/s Shikhar Chemicals, sought quashing of the summons before the high court, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute involving recovery of money, which was a civil issue at its core. However, Justice Kumar refused to quash the proceedings, reasoning that since the complainant was a small business and lacked the resources to fight a long-drawn civil case, it should be allowed to pursue the criminal case to recover his dues. 'To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money,' he observed in the impugned order. The apex court took deep exception to these observations. 'Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded are shocking,' the bench held. Citing the impugned order, the bench added: 'It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.' The bench highlighted that even the magistrate had failed to understand the fundamental legal distinction between a sale transaction and entrustment of goods, and thereby misapplied Section 406 of IPC. 'We are not taken by surprise with the magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as regards the position of law…However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' it said. The order added: 'The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.' Calling it an 'extremely sad day' for the judiciary, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the high court's order without even issuing notice to the other side. The case has now been remanded to the Allahabad High Court to be heard afresh by a different judge, as chosen by the Chief Justice.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court sets aside remand order for violating 24-hour norm
Hyderabad: Justice N Tukaramji of Telangana high court on Tuesday set aside the judicial remand of a man arrested by the Malakpet police in a case, holding that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the mandatory 24-hour limit prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS). The judge pronounced the order while allowing the criminal revision case filed by Syed Dastagir, a student-cum-Rapido captain from Edi Bazar in Hyderabad. The judge ruled that the VII additional chief judicial magistrate, Hyderabad, had mechanically authorized the custody of the petitioner — arrayed as accused number 8 in FIR No. 252 of 2025 — without examining procedural lapses and statutory safeguards. The petitioner was arrested from his residence at 10:15pm on July 7 and produced before court at 11:35pm the next day, exceeding the 24-hour limit by about 80 minutes. The delay, the court held, rendered the remand illegal in terms of Sections 57 and 167 of the CrPC (BNSS). You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The court noted that the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 204 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and provisions of Section 35(3) BNSS, the judge said police ought to have issued a notice of appearance instead of arresting the petitioner. Justice Tukaramji observed that the magistrate's order failed to record judicial reasons addressing the legality of the arrest, the delay in production, or compliance with statutory requirements — amounting to non-application of mind. Setting aside the July 8 remand order, Justice Tukaramji directed the magistrate to secure the petitioner's immediate release. Within a week of release, he must execute a personal bond of 10,000 with two sureties for a like sum. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with further proceedings, failing which coercive steps could be taken.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Abstinence from duty by presiding officer on strike call by bar assn illegal: HC
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has said abstinence from professional duty by presiding officers on a call given by the bar association was illegal and those officials who comply with such strike resolutions could face misconduct charges. While making these observations, Justice JJ Munir issued a show cause notice to the sub divisional magistrate (SDM), Koil, Aligarh for adjourning a case in pursuance of a resolution of the local bar association of Aligarh calling upon the lawyers to abstain from judicial work. "Accepting such a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the part of the presiding officer and could invite a recommendation for disciplinary action, including removal from office," the court said in its order dated July 28. The case pertains to a restoration application filed by one Satyapal Singh before the SDM under section 38(2) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The case was adjourned on July 25, 2025, since the advocates were abstaining from work on that day and the matter was fixed for July 28. Coming down heavily on the conduct of the SDM, the court observed: "It is well settled that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the bar association is absolutely illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally | Zen Life Mag Undo If no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court." The court also referred to certain Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another 2003 and many others. The court also sought full particulars of the bar association, its president and secretary in the affidavit on whose call the advocates abstained from their duties. The matter will now be heard on August 6.
