Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in a significant intervention balancing labour rights with public interest, extended its interim order restraining the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of various state road transport trade unions from proceeding with their proposed indefinite strike. The Court emphasized that citizens possess a fundamental right to access public transportation and observed that the ongoing dispute between the trade unions and transport corporations should not result in hardship to the general public.
The order was passed by a vacation Division Bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindraj and Justice K. Manmadha Rao while hearing a public interest litigation titled C. Vedavathi & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others, bearing WP No. 15683/2026. The petition was filed by two daily wage workers, namely C. Vedavathi, a housemaid, and Sreedhara H.V., a construction worker, who challenged the proposed strike announced by the Joint Action Committee representing employees of Karnataka’s state-run transport corporations.
The controversy arose after the Joint Action Committee, consisting of employees and unions associated with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), and Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC), issued a strike notice dated April 29, 2026. The unions proposed to commence an indefinite strike from May 20, 2026, primarily over service-related demands and wage-related grievances.
The petitioners approached the High Court contending that the proposed strike would severely disrupt public life across Karnataka, affecting nearly 1.20 crore daily passengers who depend upon public bus transport. The petition highlighted the disproportionate impact such a strike would have upon economically weaker sections, women beneficiaries under the State’s Shakti Scheme, students appearing for SSLC supplementary examinations, and daily wage labourers who rely entirely upon public transport for livelihood and mobility.
The matter also raised larger constitutional and statutory questions concerning the balance between the right of workers to agitate for their demands and the obligation of the State to ensure uninterrupted essential public services. The petitioners argued that the proposed strike, particularly during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, would violate Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which regulates strikes in public utility services.
During the hearing, the High Court repeatedly stressed that while the unions were entitled to pursue their demands through lawful agitation, the proposed indefinite strike could not be permitted to adversely affect millions of ordinary citizens dependent upon public transportation. The Bench orally observed that transportation is an essential necessity and that the public should not become collateral victims of industrial disputes between transport employees and government corporations.
The Court also took note of ongoing conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner and directed senior officials, including Managing Directors of all four transport corporations, to actively participate in the conciliation process scheduled for May 25, 2026.
By extending its interim order restraining the strike until the next date of hearing on June 2, 2026, the Karnataka High Court sought to preserve public convenience while encouraging meaningful dialogue between the parties involved in the dispute.
The case has attracted significant public attention because Karnataka’s state transport system constitutes the backbone of daily mobility for lakhs of citizens, especially rural commuters, students, workers, and women availing benefits under welfare schemes. The litigation therefore transcends a conventional labour dispute and directly implicates questions concerning public welfare, essential services, and constitutional governance.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, represented as daily wage workers dependent upon public transportation for their livelihood, argued that the proposed indefinite strike by the Joint Action Committee would create widespread hardship for ordinary citizens across Karnataka. They contended that state-run transport services are not merely commercial operations but essential public utilities relied upon daily by millions of people for employment, education, healthcare, and other necessities.
According to the petitioners, approximately 1.20 crore passengers travel daily using buses operated by KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC, and KKRTC. It was submitted that disruption of these services would disproportionately affect economically weaker sections of society who do not possess alternative means of transportation.
The petitioners particularly highlighted the impact upon women beneficiaries under the Karnataka Government’s Shakti Scheme, which provides free bus travel to women across the State. They argued that nearly 60% of daily commuters on these buses are women who depend upon the scheme for mobility and financial support. In the absence of public transport, these women would face severe inconvenience and additional economic burden.
Another major concern raised by the petitioners related to students appearing for SSLC supplementary examinations scheduled between May 18 and May 25. It was submitted that students from rural and semi-urban areas heavily rely upon public buses to travel to examination centres. The proposed strike, according to the petitioners, would jeopardize educational opportunities and place students under unnecessary hardship during an important academic period.
The petitioners further argued that daily wage workers such as construction labourers, domestic workers, vendors, and other informal sector employees would suffer immediate economic consequences if transport services were suspended indefinitely. Since their earnings depend upon daily attendance at workplaces, inability to travel would directly impact their survival and livelihood.
Legally, the petitioners contended that the proposed strike violated Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They submitted that public transport services fall within the category of public utility services and that strikes during pendency of conciliation proceedings are restricted under the statutory framework.
The petitioners therefore sought issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the unions from proceeding with the strike and directing the State Government to ensure uninterrupted operation of public transportation services.
On the other hand, the Joint Action Committee and transport unions defended their right to protest and agitate against unresolved service grievances and wage-related demands. The unions maintained that employees of transport corporations had longstanding concerns relating to salaries, working conditions, benefits, and financial entitlements that required immediate attention from the State Government and management authorities.
The unions argued that the proposed strike was not arbitrary but arose from persistent neglect of employees’ demands despite repeated representations and negotiations. According to the unions, industrial action became necessary because previous attempts at dialogue had failed to produce satisfactory results.
At the same time, during the course of hearing before the High Court, counsel appearing for the Joint Action Committee indicated willingness to participate in ongoing conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner. Advocate Clifton Rozario, appearing for the JAC, submitted that if senior officials, particularly the Managing Directors of the respective transport corporations, meaningfully participated in the negotiations and demonstrated seriousness toward resolving employee grievances, the unions would also cooperate with the conciliation process.
The State Government, represented by the Additional Advocate General, informed the Court that substantial efforts had already been undertaken to address the employees’ concerns. The AAG submitted that the Government had revised employees’ wages by 12.5% with effect from April 1, 2025.
It was further stated that the Government had sanctioned approximately ₹1,271.92 crores toward wage differences and had already disbursed ₹450 crores as the first instalment. The State argued that these measures reflected the Government’s commitment toward addressing employee demands through lawful and negotiated means.
The State also emphasized that conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner were already underway and that the next hearing in the process was scheduled for May 25, 2026. The Government therefore urged the Court to permit continuation of negotiations without disruption of public transportation services.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for certain transport corporations initially suggested that responsible officers, though not necessarily the Managing Directors, would attend the conciliation proceedings. However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with this approach and orally questioned whether the Managing Directors themselves intended to participate meaningfully in the negotiations.
The Bench made it clear that senior-level participation was essential for effective resolution of the dispute. Eventually, counsel appearing for KSRTC assured the Court that compliance with the directions regarding participation of Managing Directors would be ensured.
Thus, the dispute before the High Court involved competing considerations of labour rights, statutory restrictions on strikes in public utility services, public inconvenience, and the constitutional obligation of the State to maintain essential transportation facilities.
Court’s Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court, after considering submissions advanced by the petitioners, the State Government, the Joint Action Committee, and the transport corporations, extended its interim order restraining the proposed indefinite strike by transport unions until the next date of hearing on June 2, 2026.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindraj and Justice K. Manmadha Rao made it clear that while the Court was not interfering with the substantive demands or grievances raised by the unions, the proposed strike could not be permitted to disrupt essential transportation services relied upon by millions of citizens.
The Court orally observed:
“Citizens have a right to transportation. Both of you are fighting. They should not be affected. We are not interfering with any of your claims. You can agitate on that. Only on the strike are we concerned. That would affect a lot of people.”
This observation formed the central reasoning underlying the Court’s intervention. The Bench recognized public transportation as an essential service intimately connected with the rights and daily functioning of ordinary citizens. According to the Court, disputes between employees and transport corporations cannot be resolved at the cost of causing disproportionate hardship to the public.
The High Court also took judicial notice of the large number of citizens dependent upon public transport systems across Karnataka, including women beneficiaries under the Shakti Scheme, rural students, daily wage labourers, and economically weaker sections. The Court appeared particularly conscious of the fact that disruption of transport services would directly affect vulnerable sections of society lacking alternative means of travel.
Another important aspect of the Court’s reasoning concerned the ongoing conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner. The Bench noted that negotiations between the parties had not yet concluded and that the next round of conciliation was scheduled for May 25, 2026.
The Court recorded the submission made by the Additional Advocate General that meaningful discussions could take place if senior officials of the transport corporations actively participated in the proceedings. Simultaneously, the Court also recorded the assurance given by counsel for the Joint Action Committee that the unions would participate in the conciliation process if the Managing Directors attended the meetings and engaged constructively with the demands raised.
Recognizing the possibility of negotiated settlement, the Court directed that all four Managing Directors of KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC, and KKRTC, along with other concerned officials, must attend the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner.
When counsel for certain corporations attempted to suggest that subordinate officials could attend instead of Managing Directors, the Court firmly remarked:
“On May 25th, are your Managing Directors attending the meeting or not? It’s for you to decide.”
This exchange reflected the Court’s insistence upon accountability and seriousness from the management side during the negotiation process. The Bench clearly indicated that meaningful conciliation requires participation of decision-making authorities capable of resolving disputes effectively.
The Court also observed orally:
“If conciliation is successful, there is a trajectory to it. If it’s not successful, there is another trajectory to it.”
Through this observation, the Court emphasized that the industrial dispute resolution process under labour law contemplates structured progression depending upon the success or failure of conciliation efforts. The Court therefore appeared inclined to permit statutory mechanisms to operate fully before any extreme industrial action such as an indefinite strike could proceed.
Importantly, the High Court did not finally adjudicate upon the legality of the strike or the merits of the unions’ demands at this stage. The interim order was essentially preventive and aimed at preserving public convenience while negotiations remained ongoing.
The judgment reflects a careful balancing exercise between labour rights and public interest. The Court acknowledged the legitimacy of employees’ right to agitate and pursue their demands but simultaneously held that such rights cannot be exercised in a manner causing disproportionate harm to citizens dependent upon essential public services.
The order also highlights the increasing judicial recognition of transportation as a critical public necessity closely linked with constitutional principles of mobility, livelihood, education, and access to welfare schemes. By emphasizing that citizens possess a “right to transportation,” the Court underscored the broader social importance of uninterrupted public transit systems.
At the same time, the Court avoided adopting an adversarial stance against the unions. Instead, it encouraged dialogue, conciliation, and negotiated settlement through institutional labour law mechanisms.
The matter now remains pending before the Karnataka High Court and is scheduled for further consideration on June 2, 2026. The outcome of the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner may significantly influence the future course of litigation and the possibility of industrial action by the transport unions.
The interim order nevertheless stands as an important judicial intervention balancing collective bargaining rights with protection of public welfare and essential civic services.