S ANNAJJ JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, S.Annaji Rao Jadhav, has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ under Art.226 of the Const should not be granted for quashing the Circular of the Commissioner of Labour, d/ 11-3-1970 and the order of his transfer d/8-6-1973. He has also prayed for a writ or order to quash certain memos issued by the Commissioner of Labour relating to the performance of his official duties.

(2.) The petitioner is a Labour Inspector appointed by the State Govt. His main duty, among others, is to enforce the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act". While performing his duty, it appears, he has been misunderstood by his official superiors and particularly the Commissioner of Labour. On 11-3-1970, the Commr of Labour issued a Circular which is in the following terms :

(3.) The allegations of the petitioner have been controverted in the Statement of Objections, the deponent of which is one Under Secretary to Govt, Social Welfare and Labour Dept, Bangalore. It was said that the Commr being a Head of the Dept and also the principal officer for administration of the Act, was competent to issue the impugned Circular. It was also stated that the said Circular was issued with a view to prevent frivor lous prosecutions being launched by the Labour Inspectors against statutory Corporations, Banks and Public Sector Undertakings, and it only directed the Labour Inspectors to obtain prior sanction from the Commr on the administrative side, and the, same did not take away the power conferred on the Labour Inspectors to launch prosecutions under the various labour laws in force,. It was further stated that the petitioner who is a subordinate officer, cannot challenge the validity of the Circular issued by the Head, of the Dept and the principal officer under the various labour laws. As regards the, transfer of the petitioner from Bangalore to Kolar, it was stated that it was done, in the public interest and not on account of any mala fides alleged by the petitioner.