Karnataka HC Upholds Quashing Of Permission To Prosecute Auma India, Says State Merely Adopted Labour Commissioner’s Report

The Employees Association complained to the State Government in 2013 of alleged unfair labour practices by Auma India, including discrimination against union members, pressure to resign from the union, transfers, contracting out regular work, and refusal to bargain collectively.

After seeking a Labour Commissioner’s report, the Government granted permission on 10 January 2018 to prosecute the management under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The management successfully challenged that order in W.P. No. 3473 of 2018; the Single Judge quashed it for lack of independent application of mind by the Government.

The Association appealed.

Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that a court may take cognizance of an offence under the Act only on a complaint made by, or under the authority of, the appropriate Government.

The statutory decision to authorise a complaint rests with the Government; because prosecution carries serious consequences, the Government must independently apply its mind before exercising that discretion.

The Government’s order of 10 January 2018 extracted the Labour Commissioner’s opinion and granted permission on that basis, without showing an independent exercise of discretion on the complaint.

The Court therefore agreed with the Single Judge that the statutory responsibility under Section 34 could not be discharged merely by adopting the Commissioner’s recommendation.

The decision concerned the validity of the authorisation process, not whether the alleged unfair labour practices were proved.

The appeal was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.