Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah sparked a heated debate by initially announcing, then deleting, a post declaring 100% job reservation for Kannadigas in Group C and D positions within private companies. The announcement, made following a cabinet decision, was met with backlash from industry leaders who labeled the move discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Details of the Issue
Siddaramaiah’s now-deleted social media post claimed the Karnataka cabinet had approved a bill mandating full recruitment of Kannadigas for Group C and D roles across all private industries in the state. However, objections quickly arose from industry figures, citing concerns that such a policy could harm Karnataka’s thriving tech sector and other industries dependent on skilled labor.
Ministerial Clarification
Labor Minister Santosh S Lad clarified that under the proposed legislation, reservations would be capped at 70% for non-management positions and 50% for management roles in private firms. He emphasized that the government aims to prioritize local hiring but acknowledged the need for skilled workers, suggesting provisions for training and exemptions for highly skilled roles.
Industry Opposition
Industry leaders such as Mohandas Pai and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw criticized the bill as “fascist” and detrimental to Karnataka’s technological advancement. They expressed concerns over potential government interference in private sector recruitment processes and called for exemptions to protect the state’s competitive edge in technology.
Government Response
The Karnataka government defended the bill, arguing it aims to ensure job opportunities for locals and promote the use of the Kannada language in workplaces. They proposed mechanisms for training local candidates and exemptions for highly specialized positions to mitigate industry concerns.
Conclusion
The proposed ‘Karnataka State Employment of Local Candidates in Industries, Factories, and Other Establishments Bill, 2024’ is set to be tabled in the assembly amid ongoing debate and opposition from various sectors. Critics continue to question the constitutionality and practical implications of the proposed legislation on the state’s economic landscape.
