H.G. Ramesh, J.
1. This appeal by a trade union is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2003 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed Writ Petition No. 5570/2003 filed by the employer by quashing the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 2-Labour Inspector. The Labour Inspector by his said order passed in exercise of his power under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short) had directed the employer to declare 14.4.2003 as a festival holiday.
2. Facts in brief:
The first respondent (the employer) issued a list of holidays for the year 2003, in which 1.1.2003 was specified as a festival holiday. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the trade union') sought for declaring 14.4.2003 as a holiday instead of 1.1.2003. The employer did not agree. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the employer, the trade union approached the jurisdictional Labour Inspector under Section 3(2) of the Act. The Labour Inspector on a consideration of the matter, allowed the application of the trade union and directed declaration of 14.4.2003 as a festival holiday in place of 1.1.2003 which was declared as a holiday by the employer. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Inspector, the employer filed the aforesaid Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has quashed the aforesaid order of the Labour Inspector. The trade union, being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Labour Inspector.
4. The facts of this case would show that there are about 485 employees in the establishment, out of which, only 48 employees are with the appellant-trade union. The other 437 employees had accepted 1.1.2003 as a festival holiday. The grievance was only by the said 48 employees belonging to the appellant-trade union, who did not agree for declaration of 1.1.2003 as a festival holiday.
5. The learned Single Judge has quashed the order of the Labour Inspector on the ground that he had not taken into consideration the majority view of the employees while directing declaration of 14.4.2003 as a holiday. The Learned Single Judge has taken the view that while exercising power under Section 3(2) of the Act, the majority view of the employees should be the criteria in resolving the dispute.
6. Sri K.S. Subrahmanya, learned Counsel appearing for the trade union submitted that the decision of the labour Inspectors in disputes of this nature are made final Under Section 3(2) of the Act and hence the High Court should not interfere in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are unable to accede to the said submission. In an establishment, where there are large number of employees, the Labour Inspector while resolving disputes Under Section 3(2) of the Act as to allowing of holidays will have to take into consideration the views of all sections of the employees. If the Labour Inspector ignores the view of a large section of the employees and arbitrarily declares a holiday, such decision, in our view, would be contrary to Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Rules, 1964 and could be reviewed by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In this context, it is relevant to notice the aforesaid Rule which reads as follows:
'6. Decision on disputes under Section 3.- (1) As soon as may be after the Inspector receives reference of a dispute under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, he shall after giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer and employees or their registered trade union to file their objections or suggestions or views on the dispute and after considering their objections, suggestions or views, as the case may be, decide the dispute.'
In our opinion, whenever there is any disagreement between the employer and employees or the trade unions concerned as to the festivals to be allowed as holidays, the view of majority of the employees should generally be the criteria while deciding disputes Under Section 3(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the learned single Judge to warrant interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.