Karnataka HC Rejects Workmen’s Mass Recusal Pleas Over Generalised Bias Claims, Directs Effective Hearing Opportunities At Hubballi, Mangaluru

The petitioners, workmen in several industrial disputes before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, challenged the Tribunal’s order rejecting their applications seeking the Presiding Officer’s recusal and a stay of proceedings.

The applications alleged, in general terms, unequal treatment, denial of effective hearings, procedural irregularities and bias.

The petitioners relied, among other things, on a notice to one workman threatening to strike off her evidence if she failed to appear for cross-examination; the High Court noted that the applications contained omnibus allegations and that the petitioners’ counsel confirmed identical applications had been filed in approximately 60 matters.

The Tribunal had invited the applicants to appear and explain their individual grievances, but they did not do so.

The petitioners invoked Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by analogy, the principles of natural justice and the right to fair adjudication under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1, for the principle that a judge’s recusal should not be granted merely at a litigant’s request; it must be justified, since unjustified recusal risks undermining judicial independence.

Allegations seeking recusal must provide a sufficient, case-specific basis; procedural or substantive irregularities may instead be raised through appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

The Court found that the applications alleged a broad pattern of unfairness but did not identify specific instances in the individual cases.

Although the petitioners relied on a notice issued to one workman, that example did not substantiate the general allegations across the matters.

The applicants also declined the Tribunal’s invitation to appear and explain their individual grievances, and their absence did not establish that the allegations were true.

The Court held that permitting recusal applications based on such omnibus allegations would impede the functioning of judicial and quasi-judicial officers; any particular procedural or substantive illegality could be challenged through the remedies available in law.

It nevertheless directed the Tribunal to determine the pending industrial disputes in accordance with law, provide the workmen sufficient opportunities to present their cases, and hold proceedings at a convenient place—Hubballi or Mangaluru—to address concerns about access to justice.