[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Orissa Collieries Mazdoor vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4007 of 2026
Orissa Collieries Mazdoor .... Petitioner
Sangha, Angul
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Adv.
-versus-
Union of India & others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Routray, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
08.04.2026
Order No.
07. A Trade Union registered under the provisions of erstwhile
Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 is knocking at the doors of the Writ
Court for essentially assailing the communication dated 29.1.2026, a
copy whereof avails at Annexure-1. The said communication being
short & sweet is reproduced below, for ease of reference.
"This is to inform that, on the issue of the
grievance raised by an operating Trade Union
regarding the participation of OCMS in
statutory/non-statutory, bi-partite, and tri-partite
committees of MCL, owing to disposal of a high
court case, matter was referred to CIL for their
advice and appropriate direction.
In reply, Executive Director (HR), CIL, vide his
e-mail communication dated 16.10.2025 has
confirmed that "there is no legal compulsion for the
inclusion of INTUC in bi-partite or tri-partite
meetings of MCL. Therefore, the order of Consultant
of MoC dated 11.01.2017 stands."
Further, General Secretary, OCMS was given
an opportunity vide this office letter ref. no.
एम.सी.एल/का.वि./औ. सं/2025/1375 dated
14.11.2025 to represent his case as to why OCMS
should not be disallowed from participation in any
of the statutory/non-statutory, bi-partite, and tri-
partite committees of MCL. General Secretary,
OCMS, vide his letter dated 21.11.2025, addressed
to the General Manager (HR/MP&IR), has
submitted his reply.
The above letters along with other relevant
documents were referred to the Advocate General,
Govt. of Odisha for opinion and the Advocate
General, Odisha, vide opinion dated 19.01.2026
(copy enclosed), has stated that:
Quote
"my firm opinion is that there is no compulsion
for inclusion of OCMS in bi-partite & tripartite
meetings of MCL. Therefore, OCMS Union,
operating in MCL can be disallowed for
participation in statutory/non-statutory bi-partite
and tripartite committee meetings in MCL."
Unquote
In view of the above, it is conveyed that
henceforth, OCMS should be disallowed from
participation in statutory/non-statutory, bi-partite,
and tripartite committees in all Areas of MCL.
This is for your information and further needful
action please and issues with the approval of
competent authority."
2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rath & Mr. Routray appearing
for the Advocate on record vehemently attack the impugned
communication inter alia on the grounds that the same suffers from
the voice of non-application of mind; the relevant material that was
furnished by way of reply to the show cause notice have not been
adverted to; there is no application of mind by the decision maker,
who has structured the impugned communication being swayed
away by the opinion of Advocate General when law required
himself taking the decision. They have also cited a few decisions to
highlight what is meant by consideration and also the requirement of
furnishing the reasons even when the decision does not partake the
characteristics of a quasi-judicial one. Those decisions are as
follows:
(a) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530;
(b) Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9
SCC 496;
(c) Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, (2010) 13 SCC 427;
(d) State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568;
(e) Basudev Dutta v. The State of West Bengal, 2024 INSC 940.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Advocate on
record for MCL per contra vehemently resists the petition
controverting contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner.
These submissions essentially related to absence of recognition of
any Trade Union in the realm; the idea of collective bargaining
being given away under the new regime; the impugned
communication should be viewed not as a quasi-judicial order made
by a trained mind in the armchair of law but as a man in the trade;
he also refutes the contention of the Petitioner that all relevant
factors have not been considered in the impugned communication.
4. Learned counsel appearing for intervener-applicant seeks to
say a few words on the subject matter of the lis and we decline to
give audience to him, inasmuch as the intervener is miles away from
the cause we are treating at our hands.
5. Having learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
perused the petition papers, we are broadly in agreement with the
submission made on behalf of the Petitioner-Trade Union that the
impugned communication is not well structured; prima facie it
reflects non-application of mind, inasmuch as it only quotes what
opinion the learned Advocate General, in his letter dated
19.01.2026, had stated; a serious matter as to the right of
participation in the statutory and non-statutory meetings of the
organization has not been treated with due seriousness and that
would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record
warranting interference of this Court.
6. On our own, we would have adjudicated the validity of the
impugned communication once for all keeping in view the arguable
right of the petitioner for participation in the statutory and non-
statutory meetings more particularly in the light of Rules 29Q and
29U of The Mines Rules 1955. However, we felt that in the fitness
things, matter should be remitted to the portals of the MCL for
taking a decision de novo so that all contentions of the parties can be
addressed by the decision maker after having wider consideration
and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders in
the matter, keeping open all contentions of the parties.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of
Certiorari issues quashing the impugned communication dated
29.01.2026 at Annexure-1; matter is remitted to the portals of MCL
for taking a fresh decision within an outer limit of eight weeks
excluding the period of adjournments sought for by the
stakeholders. All contentions are kept open. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the costs are made easy.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
