Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Indian National Mineworkers' ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 2023
Form No. J.(2)
Item No. 05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON : 10.02.2023
DELIVERED ON : 10.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYA
M.A.T. No. 623 of 2021
With
IA No.CAN 1 of 2021
Indian National Mineworkers' Federation (INMF) & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Soumya Majumder
Mr. Dwipayan Sengupta
Mr. Victor Chatterjee ........... for the appellants
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Rahul Sarkar
............ for UOI
Mr. Rabilal Moitra
Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee
Mr. Rajit Lal Maitra
Ms. Sanchita Burman Roy ............ for Coal India Limited
Mr. Kiron Sk. ............ for Respondents No.9 to 12
2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 29 th June, 2021
passed in WPA 10739 of 2021. By the said order the learned Single Bench
declined to grant any interim order but directed the writ petition to be listed for
final hearing. The first appellant is the Indian National Mine Workers' Federation
and the appellant nos.2 to 6 are the various trade unions. According to the first
appellant, it is a federation of various trade unions, which consists of workmen
employed in the coal industry. The issue, which is the subject matter of the writ
petition is with regard to the constitution of JBCCI-XI for the purposes of
bringing out a wage settlement for the employees in the coal industry. The first
appellant is an affiliate of the central trade union i.e. Indian National Trade Union
Congress (INTUC). JBCCI-XI has been constituted wherein the workmen are
represented by the central trade unions. However, for the JBCCI-X, INTUC was
not represented on account of internal disputes within the central trade unions
and more particularly on account of an order passed by the High Court at Delhi
in WP (C) 8152 of 2016 dated 1 st August, 2018. Thus, INTUC was not
represented in the JBCCI-X. The JBCCI-XI is in progress and the appellants
have approached this Court seeking for appropriate interim directions so as to
enable the first appellant to participate in consultation representing the workmen
in the coal industry. The first appellant claims that it enjoys the patronage of
majority number of workmen in the coal industry, which is vehemently objected
to and opposed by Coal India Limited.
2. Admittedly, the writ petition is yet to be taken up for disposal. If the matter
is allowed to lie over, in all probabilities the writ petition would become
infructuous and the JBCCI-XI would get concluded. In this scenario the Court
has to examine as to what is to be done. The purpose of constitution of JBCCI is
to arrive at a settlement with regard to wage and other issues concerning the
workmen working in the coal industry. Therefore the representation should be
broad based so that all sections of workmen are adequately represented.
3. The learned senior advocate appearing for the Coal India Limited submitted
that there may be hundreds and thousands of unions through out the country
and all of them would claim representation in the JBCCI, which is not feasible of
compliance. As a general proposition the submission of the learned senior
advocate may be right. However, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, it calls for a different approach. Admittedly,
the central trade union (INTUC) had not participated in the JBCCI-X as well as in
the meetings of JBCCI-XI which have already been held. We are informed that a
couple of more meetings are likely to take place and the entire JBCCI will get
concluded by the end of February 2023 or by March 2023.
4. It is seen that the first appellant/Federation had been representing INTUC
in all the earlier JBCCI and by way of illustration one memorandum of agreement
dated 19th January, 1996 has been placed before this Court from which we find
Mr. Damodar Pandey, Vice-President of the first appellant had represented INTUC
in the discussion. There are two communications, which are to be looked into,
the first of which is a communication placed by the learned senior advocate for
Coal India Limited dated 6 th May 2021 issued by the Ministry of Coal,
Government of India. The learned senior advocate has drawn our attention to
paragraph 3 of the said communication and submitted that it is only the Central
Trade Unions operating in the coal industry are entitled to participate in the
discussion for protection of wages, social security, fringe benefits etc. of the
workers in the coal industry. Therefore, it is a submission made on behalf of the
Coal India Limited that neither the first appellant nor the other appellants not
being a central trade union cannot participate in the JBCCI-X. However, in the
said communication in paragraph no.2 it has been stated that as far as the
representation of INTUC is concerned Coal India limited may decide as to which
faction of INTUC should be represented in JBCCI taking into consideration the
orders issued by the Hon'ble Courts, if any. Thus, the Ministry of Coal has left
the decision to Coal India Limited to take a decision as to which faction of INTUC
can represent JBCCI-XI. Thus, it goes without saying that if Coal India Limited
decides to invite one faction, obviously that faction will not be a central trade
union. Therefore, in our understanding the communication of the Ministry of
Coal dated 6th May, 2021 does not absolutely bar the federation or trade unions
which are affiliates of INTUC to participate in the consultation.
5. More importantly another communication dated 18 th October, 2021 from
the Ministry of Labour and Employment also concerns the matter which is
pending before the Delhi High Court with regard to the inter se disputes in
INTUC. In the said office memorandum it has been stated that the Ministry of
Labour and Employment vide memorandum dated 4 th January, 2017 informed
not to give representation to INTUC in meetings convened by the Ministry of
Labour and nomination of various tripartite bodies including the international
fora under the Ministry of Labour and Employment till finalization of the pending
Court cases amongst the factions of INTUC. The next sentence in the said
communication is of significance. It states that the said office memorandum
dated 4th January, 2017 is not against representation of individual trade union
affiliate to INTUC in an organisation/industry. Thus, the Ministry of Labour and
Employment deals with all labour issues through out the country regardless of
the nature of employment and, therefore, in our understanding the office
memorandum dated 18th October, 2021 would assume more significance than the
communication of the Ministry of Coal dated 6 th May,2021, which is confined only
to coal industry. That apart, office memorandum of the Labour and Employment
takes into consideration various categories of employment in which INTUC, the
central union will have its members as workmen.
6. Thus, when the first appellant/Federation had been representing INTUC
during the period when there were no internal dispute in INTUC, we are of the
view that the first appellant should be permitted to participate in the forthcoming
meetings of JBCCI-XI. This direction will, however, not impinge upon the
contentions that the parties may advance before the learned writ Court.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and there will be direction to Coal India
Limited to permit the first appellant/Federation which is an affiliate of INTUC to
participate in the forthcoming meetings of the JBCCI-XI. As observed earlier, this
order is without prejudice to the rights of the parties which they may canvass in
the writ petition.
8. Furthermore, we find that there is no rival faction, which has approached
this Court by filing an appropriate petition or application, which would fortify our
thought process.
9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to
the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
I agree, (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
RAJA/Pallab, AR(Ct.)
