High Court intervenes in Karnataka transport strike, directs unions to defer protest by a day
The Karnataka High Court directed transport unions to defer their planned August 5 strike by a day, following a PIL citing public hardship. The court criticised the timing of the petition but acknowledged the disruption the strike could cause to essential services
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has stepped into the ongoing standoff between the state government and transport employees, directing the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of transport workers’ unions to postpone their planned strike by one day. The direction came during a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging the transport strike here on Monday.
A division bench comprising Justices K S Mudagal and M G S Kamal issued notices to the state government, state-run transport corporations, and the JAC. The PIL was taken up by the division bench, as the Chief Justice’s bench was not holding court. The matter has been adjourned to Tuesday (August 5), with a suggestion that the hearing be held before the Chief Justice’s bench.
Advocate Deeksha Amrutesh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the proposed strike, scheduled from August 5, would severely impact public mobility and cause widespread hardship to citizens. She informed the court that the strike call comes despite several rounds of meetings between the state and the unions, including ones held on July 28 and August 2, and another one already scheduled for August 7.
Amrutesh pointed out that the demands raised by the unions would impose a burden of Rs 2,200 crore on the state exchequer, which cannot be justified. She also reminded the court that disciplinary action had been initiated against employees in previous strike episodes, emphasising that such strikes disrupt essential services.
However, the High Court bench questioned the petitioner on the timing of the PIL. “Why was this petition filed at the last minute?” the bench asked, highlighting the importance of timely legal intervention, especially in matters involving essential services.
Appearing for the transport corporations, advocate H R Renuka informed the court that the unions had issued strike notices as early as July 15. The bench noted the advance notice but emphasised that public inconvenience must be weighed in when allowing such demonstrations.
Reacting to the High Court’s interim direction, Ananth Subbarao, president of the JAC of transport workers’ unions, expressed dissatisfaction. “We have not yet received the copy of the court’s order. Once we receive it, we will take a call. But rather than suggesting a one-day deferral, the court could have directed the government to address our demands,” he said.
He further questioned the effectiveness of postponing the strike by a day: “What difference does it make if we strike on one day or the next? The public still suffers. The government needs to address the root cause — our legitimate demands — not delay the issue with court orders.”
The proposed strike is expected to paralyse public transport services across the state, including major corporations like KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC, and NEKRTC. The unions are pressing for salary revisions, permanent jobs for contract workers, and parity with state government employees in terms of benefits.
