Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Chenab Valley Power Projects ...../ vs Kissan Mazdoor Union Nagseni Kishtwar on 30 May, 2025
Sr. No. 106
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1392/2025
CM No. 3287/2025
M/s Chenab Valley Power Projects ...../Petitioner(s)
Ltd.
Through: Mr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate
Ms. Damini Singh Chauhan, Advocate
Vs
Kissan Mazdoor Union Nagseni Kishtwar ..... Respondent(s)
and Ors.
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
30.05.2025
1. Issue notice to the respondents in the main as well as in the interim
application, returnable within a period of four weeks', subject to taking of
requisite steps for service within a week's period for filing of reply/objections.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer for grant
of interim relief, who inter alia contended that the Union of respondent No.1
has been demanding the payment of wages to the workers engaged by the
contractors of the Chenab Valley Power Projects Limited as per the Central
Minimum Wages when they are entitled under law to the minimum wages in
vogue as per the notification of the UT Government of J&K. The learned
counsel invited the attention of the Court towards a communication dated
24.05.2022 made by the respondent No.5 to the Managing Director, CVPPL
(Chenab Valley Power Projects Limited), Jammu wherein the clarification
sought has been made by stating that as per the provisions of Section 2(b)(i) of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State Government is the, "appropriate
authority" for fixing the minimum wages in respect of the workers engaged by
the contractors of CVPPL. He further submitted that several conciliation
efforts have also been held in respect of the dispute and the matter is presently
sub-judice before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, Haryana Press Building, Sector18/A, Chandigarh. The learned
counsel submitted that the Union of respondent No. 1 while misusing the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 issued a final strike Notice(s)
purportedly under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act to be effective
from 29th of May 2025. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Section
23 of Industrial Disputes Act, strike call cannot be given during the pendency
of a dispute before any Tribunal or Authority. The learned counsel submitted
that in case the Union of the respondent No.1 is not restrained from going on
the proposed strike, the national interest will be put to loss.
3. The learned counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on the
authoritative judgments cited as 'Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs.
Petroleum Employees Union & Others', 2003 0 Supreme(Mad) 519 2004 3
MLJ 456 and 'Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Petroleum
Workmen's Union a Union registered under the Trade Union Act &
Others', 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 908 2011 5 BomCR 41.
4. Perused the interim application supported with an affidavit. Also perused the
main petition and the copies of the documents enclosed with the same as
Annexures thereto.
5. List on 09.07.2025.
6. In the meantime, subject to any vacation/modification upon the
consideration of objections/arguments and till next date of hearing before
the Bench, the operation of the strike Notices dated 22.05.2025 and
27.05.2025 issued by the Union of respondent No.1 shall remain in
abeyance with the simultaneous direction to the respondents 2 to 8 to
address the issue/concern forming the cause of the strike Notices and
submit a compliance report to this Court positively by the next date of
hearing.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
30.05.2025
Nikhil
