Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Order Date: 24 July 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: petitioner – Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt Ltd (represented by Senior General Manager HR, Sri. Srinivasa B.A.); respondents – (1) Additional Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru; (2) Robert Bosch Automotive Electronics Employees Union, represented by President Sri. Somashekara A.K.
- Dispute: Union issued a strike notice on 23 Feb 2026, proposing to commence strike on or after 09 Mar 2026. The petitioner claimed the strike was illegal because conciliation proceedings were pending.
- Procedural Timeline:
- 23 Feb 2026 – Union submitted charter of demands and issued strike notice.
- Same day – Petitioner filed representation with Deputy Labour Commissioner; Conciliation Officer (respondent 1) issued notice for conciliation on 03 Mar 2026.
- Conciliation proceedings commenced on 03 Mar 2026, adjourned to 06 Mar 2026 and then to 10 Mar 2026. The strike was still slated for 09 Mar 2026.
- Petitioner’s Contentions:
- Section 62(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code) prohibits strikes during conciliation and for seven days thereafter.
- Section 63 declares any strike contravening Section 62 as illegal.
- Since conciliation was pending, the only remedy was a writ petition; the Tribunal could not be approached until a failure report under Section 53(1) was issued.
- Union’s Contentions:
- A writ of certiorari cannot be issued against a trade union as it is not a State instrumentality.
- The dispute falls within the statutory forum of the IR Code; the right to strike is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by a writ.
- Legal Provisions Discussed:
- Sections 62(1)(d) & 63 of the IR Code – strike prohibition and illegality.
- Section 53(1), (5), (6) – conciliation procedure, report timelines, and right to apply to Tribunal within 90 days of report receipt.
- Section 44 – constitution and jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals, including power to decide “illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock‑out”.
- Section 97 – bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters covered by the IR Code.
- Relevant case law cited by both sides, including Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Petroleum Employees Union, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Karnataka Petroleum & Gas Workers Union, S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., and T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa.
- Court’s Reasoning:
- The Union is a private body not discharging a public duty; therefore, a writ against it is not ordinarily maintainable.
- However, the statutory remedy under the IR Code (approach to Industrial Tribunal) exists, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce the prohibition in Section 62(1)(d).
- Section 53(6) does not bar the Tribunal from granting limited relief to enforce the strike prohibition during conciliation; it only postpones adjudication of the substantive industrial dispute.
- The Court emphasized a purposive, harmonious interpretation to avoid a legislative vacuum where a prohibited strike could occur with no effective remedy.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
- Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal under the IR Code for limited relief enforcing Section 62(1)(d), provided the statutory prohibition remains operative.
- Any Tribunal proceeding shall be confined to the question of whether the proposed or continuing strike violates Section 62(1)(d); it shall not adjudicate the merits of the strike notice or the underlying industrial dispute.
- The period during which the Court’s interim restraining order was in force is excluded from the calculation of the statutory strike timeline under Section 62.
- All other contentions relating to the substantive industrial dispute remain open for future determination.
Topics: Industrial Relations, Strike Prohibition