Case Note & Summary
Background: The writ petition was filed by Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacturing automotive electronic components, against the Addl. Labour Commissioner and its workers' union, Robert Bosch Automotive Electronics Employees Union. The company challenged a strike notice issued by the union on the ground that it violated the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 as conciliation proceedings were pending. Facts: A dispute arose over a charter of demands for the period April 2026 to March 2027. The union submitted the charter and simultaneously served a strike notice on 23 February 2026, indicating the strike would commence on or after 9 March 2026. The company immediately approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who initiated conciliation proceedings on 3 March 2026. The proceedings were adjourned to 6 and 10 March 2026. On 9 March 2026, the company filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the strike notice and an injunction restraining the union from proceeding with the strike, alleging that the proposed strike was illegal under Sections 62(1)(d) and 63 of the Code as conciliation was pending. The High Court granted an ex parte interim order restraining the strike. Legal Issues: The court framed two main questions: (1) Whether an industrial establishment can maintain a writ petition to restrain a strike during conciliation proceedings based on illegality under the Code; (2) Whether the aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Code to challenge the legality of the proposed strike when conciliation is pending. Arguments: The company argued that the strike was statutorily prohibited and illegal, that no remedy was available before the Tribunal during conciliation, and thus the writ petition was the only recourse to enforce statutory duties. The union contested maintainability, contending that a trade union is not a State or an instrumentality under Article 12, does not discharge public duties, and therefore is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It further asserted that the dispute was an industrial dispute for which the Code provided a complete statutory framework. Court's Analysis: The court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., applied the function test and held that the maintainability of a writ petition against a private body depends on whether it discharges a public duty or public function. The court distinguished precedents cited by the company, noting that they involved government-owned corporations or public utility services, which possessed the character of State or instrumentality. The present union, being a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, did not discharge any public duty or function. The court also observed that the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolution of industrial disputes, including provisions for conciliation, reference to Industrial Tribunal, and determination of the legality of strikes. The company had an effective alternative remedy under the Code and could not bypass it by invoking writ jurisdiction. Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, vacated the interim order, and granted liberty to the company to approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The judgment emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to circumvent the specialized adjudicatory framework established for industrial disputes.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Dispute - Strike during Pendency of Conciliation - Industrial Relations Code, 2020, Sections 62(1)(d), 63 - Petitioner alleged that the strike notice during pending conciliation proceedings was illegal under the Code. The Court examined the statutory scheme and held that the Code provides a comprehensive mechanism for adjudication of industrial disputes including determination of illegality. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy before the competent authority/Tribunal. (Paras 1-5, 10-15) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability Against Trade Union - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Union contested maintainability arguing it is neither State nor instrumentality nor discharging public duties. The Court applied the function test from S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and held that a trade union does not fall within the categories amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petition was not maintainable as the Union was not shown to be discharging any public duty. (Paras 8-15) C) Labour Law - Alternative Remedy - Industrial Tribunal - Industrial Relations Code, 2020 - The Court considered whether an aggrieved party can approach the Industrial Tribunal during pendency of conciliation proceedings and answered in the affirmative. It held that the Code provides adequate statutory forum and the petitioner must approach that forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek remedy under the Code. (Paras 1, 10-15, concluding order)
Issue of Consideration
Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 against a trade union to restrain strike during conciliation proceedings; and availability of alternative remedy under Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Interim order vacated. Petitioner at liberty to approach appropriate forum under Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the trade union is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State, and does not discharge public duties. The dispute is an industrial dispute for which the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 provides a comprehensive mechanism. The court vacated the interim order restraining the strike and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the Code.
Law Points
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable against a trade union absent discharge of public duty
- function test determines amenability to writ jurisdiction
- Industrial Relations Code 2020 provides alternative remedy for industrial disputes including challenge to illegality of strike
- strike during pendency of conciliation is illegal under Section 62(1)(d) read with Section 63 of the Code
- aggrieved party must avail statutory remedy before approaching Industrial Tribunal
