Bharat Bandh: No impact on industrial production in Mysuru
Bharat Bandh live updates - July 09, 2025
The objective of the strike was to draw attention to the 'anti-worker' policies of the State and the Central Government. One of the key demands put forward by the trade unions was abrogation of the four labour codes formulated by the Centre.
The 4 Labour Codes
Code on Wages, 2019 Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Code on Social Security, 2020 Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
The codes have been opposed by trade unions on the ground that they are inimical to their collective interest.
The trade unions have argued that the existing labour laws evolved out of decades of struggle while the labour codes formulated by the Centre have left the workers with no safeguards in addition to curtailing their bargaining powers.
In Mysuru, leaders of various trade unions and scores of activists from AIUTUC, CITU, and AIKMS, marched along the main thoroughfares of the city raising slogans against the government in Karnataka and at the Centre.
Jagadish Surya of CPI (M) said the objective of the strike was to send a strong message to the government and to States where the trade union organisations are powerful, and the impact has been strong.
Both the Centre and the State came under flak for weakening workers' rights under the guise of 'ease of doing business'.
The agitating trade union organisations sought minimum wages at the rate of ₹36,000 per month, an end to outsourcing labour, hiring workers on contract basis, as trainees and apprentices.
The government was urged to sanction pension at the rate of ₹9,000 per month for people employed in the unorganized sector as they had no job or social security.
A few of the demands relate to farmers and agriculture. Trade unions want the government of Karnataka to rescind amendments to various laws that had a bearing on agriculture and farming, such as Electricity Amendment Bill, 2022, which, the workers argue, is an attempt to pave the way for privatisation of the power sector.
The government was urged to comply with other demands of farmers, including minimum support price for agricultural produce based on the formula — comprehensive cost of production + 50% — proposed by M.S. Swaminathan Commission, withdrawal of amendments to a few laws, which have a bearing on agriculture, such as the Land Reforms Amendment Act, and APMC Amendment Act, by the government of Karnataka.
Lingaraju, president, Mysuru Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI), said the general strike did not have any impact on industrial production, as only the leaders and office-bearers took part.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court to hear pleas against Centre's nod to release Udaipur Files film on July 30
The Delhi High Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) said it would hear on July 30, the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release the film "Udaipur Files — Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". The Court was also informed that an application has been made by the producers of the film to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for re-certification of the movie, and it is likely to be considered shortly. A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela listed the pleas for hearing on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) after a request for adjournment was made on behalf of one of the petitioners. The two petitions were listed before the High Court in pursuance to the Supreme Court's direction to the petitioners to approach the high court against the Centre's decision of giving nod for the film's release. The petitions have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The apex court, on July 25, had said that film-makers' appeal against the High Court order staying the film's release was infructuous for they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Delhi HC to hear pleas on July 30 on govt's nod to release Udaipur Files
The Delhi High Court on Monday said it would hear on July 30, the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release the film "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". The court was also informed that an application has been made by the producers of the film to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for re-certification of the movie, and it is likely to be considered shortly. A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela listed the pleas for hearing on Wednesday after a request for adjournment was made on behalf of one of the petitioners. The two petitions were listed before the high court in pursuance to the Supreme Court's direction to the petitioners to approach the high court against the Centre's decision of giving nod for the film's release. The petitions have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The apex court, on July 25, had said that film-makers' appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous for they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
