1 2025:CGHC:34662-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 265 of 2025 Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (Regd. No. 22 Of 1948), A Trade Union Having Its Head Quarter At B/21-22, Indira Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.), Through-Its General Secretary- Dr. Deepak Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ramswarup Jaiswal, Aged About- 63 Years, R/o Vidya Nagar, In Front of Apollo Pharmacy, Bilaspur, Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, Po- South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District- Korea (C.G.) 2 - Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Main Road Torwa Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - National Front Of Indian Trade Unions (Wrongly Mentioned As 'national Federation Of Indian Trade Union' In The Impugned Order Dated 26-06-2024), (A Central Trade Union Organization Recognized By Government Of India Vide Order No. L-52025/20/2003-IR) Having Its Office At Shramik Sadan, In front of Apollo Pharmacy, Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General, alongwith Ms. Annapurna Tiwari and Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocates. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2 Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 207/2019 by which the petition filed by the writ petitioner-South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short, the SECL), (respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed. 3 The appellant-Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (for short, the RCMC), has prayed for the following relief(s): “(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of this case for it's kind perusal; 3 (ii) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A/1) by dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 (the petitioner) Company; and (iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the appellant (the respondent no.3).” 4 Before the learned Single Judge, challenge was made by the writ petitioner-SECL to the order dated 28.12.2018 passed in Case No. BSP- 7(03)/2018-RLC by Regional Labour Commissioner (C), (for short, the RLC) Bilaspur, by which the respondent No.1 issued direction under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 directing the writ petitioner to calculate and determine the claim amount and ascertain the “Money Due” as per Bhave Award passed in Reference Case No. 6/89 or in accordance with the settlement dated 22.09.1992 or where it may be worked out without any dispute in respect of Shree Niwas Gurijala and 134 others after identification and verification of the workers within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petitioner had also prayed for setting aside the show cause notices dated 15.04.2019 and 22.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) by which the respondent No. 2/RLC Bilaspur, had directed the writ petitioner as to why suitable legal action shall not be initiated against the petitioner by issuing revenue recovery certificate to the competent authority under Section 33 (C) (1) of the I.D. Act 1947 for recovery of Rs. 55,807,4256.38 of 135 workers mentioned in the list. 5 The facts, projected by the appellant-RCMC, is that RCMC is a registered trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926. It was earlier known as Chhattisgarh Colliery Federation Workers' 4 subsequently the name of the appellant kept on changing from time to time. The respondent No.3- National Front of Indian Trade Unions (for short, the NFITU) is a Central Trade Union Organization, recognized by the Government of India vide order No. L-52025/20/2003-IR. NFITU represents Trade Unions affiliated to it and it also performs social activities for the welfare and benefit of the workmen/labours engaged/working under Public Sector Undertakings. 6 In the year 1988, a dispute was raised by the appellant-RCMC before the writ petitioner/SECL regarding regularization/ departmentalization of Tub Repair Workers who were engaged through contractors and were working on contractual basis in Hasdev Area. On 23.09.1989, an agreement was executed between the writ petitioner-SECL and the appellant-RCMC (then named as NCWF) for settlement of dispute through arbitration and Mr. H.G. Bhave was appointed as Arbitrator under section 10A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. At the time of agreement, as many as 135 Tub Repair Workers (Satish Chandra and 134 others) working in Hasdev Area were being represented by the appellant-RCMC and the said agreement was executed by the appellant on behalf of the said 135 persons. On 05.10.1989, the arbitration agreement was notified in the Gazette and then the case of the appellant- RCMC was registered as Reference No. 06.1989. The case of the appellant-RCMC was heard together with three other cases raised by three other unions namely MPKMS, RKKMS and SKMS. In so far as the case of the appellant-RCMC (then named NCWF) is concerned, the same was registered as Reference No. 06/89. On 30.08.1990, the award was passed by the Arbitrator Shri H.G. Bhave wherein the claim for departmentalization was found to be justified and direction was passed 5 for departmentalization of Tub Repair Workers with effect from 01.12.1988 with all consequential benefits. 7 On 07.09.1990, the award dated 30.08.1990 passed by the Arbitrator was notified in Gazette of India vide notification dated 07.09.1990. After passing of the award dated 30.08.1990, Shri G.P. Sharma, the then General Secretary of the appellant-RCMC made an approach for compliance of the arbitration award passed in Reference No. 06/89 on 04.10.1990 and made prayer for departmentalization of 135 Tub Repair Workers by signing arbitration agreement on their behalf. On 04.02.1992, an application was filed by the appellant-RCMC for implementation of Bhave Award before the RLC, Jabalpur. On 01.04.1993, the order dated 01.04.1993 was passed by the RLC, Jabalpur and the matter was closed by giving information to the effect that no further action is required. In the year 1994, a writ petition bearing M.P No. 1322/1994 was filed by the appellant-RCMC challenging the order dated 01.04.1993 passed by the RLC, Jabalpur. On 10.11.2005, M.P No. 1322/1994 preferred by the appellant-RCMC against the order dated 01.04.1993 passed by the RLC, Jabalpur was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2005 and keeping in view the argument of the appellant (the respondent no.3) union RCMC (NCWF) that verification has not been done by the RLC, Jabalpur, the RLC, Jabalpur was directed to consider the representation of the appellant within a period of three months and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. On 22.02.2006, the order dated 22.02.2006 was passed by the RLC, Jabalpur and the Management of the SECL was advised to enter into a bilateral settlement/tripartite settlement/arbitration agreement with the appellant on the point-in- dispute (i.e. non implementation of the arbitration award passed in Reference No. 06/89) to avoid prosecution proceeding holding that the 6 award is still having binding force. A letter dated 26.07.2006 was issued by the RLC, Jabalpur by which the appellant was informed that further action would be taken after advice/instruction of the CLC(C), New Delhi. 8 In the year 2007, a petition bearing W.P. No. 5920/2007 was filed by the appellant-RCMC substantially for a direction to the Central Labour authorities to make implementation of the order dated 22.02.2006 and for other ancillary reliefs to which replies were duly filed by the respondents. On 31.03.2009, the officers of the writ petitioner-SECL (who were arrayed as respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 5920/2007) were directed vide order dated 31.03.2009 to file reply with respect to identification of certain employees pointed out in the reply of the respondent No.1 of that writ petition. On 18.01.2014, a representation was made by the appellant before the Secretary, Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for settlement of dispute out of the Court. On 19.02.2014, a hearing was held and the appellant was heard by the Secretary, Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi, in presence of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) (for short, the Dy. CLC) New Delhi. On 24.02.2014, a letter was written by the Dy. CLC, New Delhi and the Dy. CLC, Jabalpur, was requested to take necessary action in case the arbitration award is still enforceable and the concerned management is not implementing the award with further request to deal with the matter on priority basis. Since the matter was within jurisdiction of the Dy. CLC, Raipur, the matter was sent by the Dy. CLC, Jabalpur to the Dy. CLC, Raipur and thereafter, the matter was referred by the Dy. CLC, Raipur to RLC, Bilaspur, for suitable action. Thereafter, discussions were held between the appellant-RCMC and the management of the writ petitioner-company in presence of the RLC, Bilaspur. During course of discussions, the workers whose name 7 were mentioned in the list had marked their attendance for identification before the RLC, Bilaspur, on 13.10.2015 with all their documents and they were identified by the RLC, Bilaspur, and by the management of the writ petitioner-Company. Thereafter, as per demand of the writ petitioner- Company, a list was submitted with supporting affidavit and documentary proof before the RLC, Bilaspur, and thereafter the list along with documentary proofs was forwarded by the RLC, Bilaspur to the management of the writ petitioner-Company on 29.07.2016. The management of the writ petitioner-Company never disputed the list submitted by the appellant-RCMC and furthermore, the list sent by RLC Bilaspur on 29.07.2016 was also not disputed. 9 On 19.10.2016, a letter dated 19.10.2016 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL Bilaspur to show cause as to why the Bhave Award has not been implemented in respect of Case No. 06/89 whereas the same has been implemented in respect of Case No. 04/89 and 05/89. On 26.10.2016, a show-cause notice was issued by the RLC, Bilaspur, to the General Manager of the writ petitioner-Company to show cause as to why legal action sould not be initiated against the management of SECL. Apart of the above stated actions, some notices were also issued to the writ petitioner-Company in respect of implementation of the arbitration award passed in Reference No. 06/89. 10 Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate submits that since the legal action was started to be taken against the writ petitioner-Company and since the grievance of the appellant-RCMC was in substance redressed, an application was filed by the appellant-RCMC on 25.02.2017 seeking permission for withdrawal of W.P. No. 5920/2007 with liberty to approach the Hon'ble Court, if the grievance of the 8 appellant-union is not settled. On 08.03.2017, W.P. No. 5920/2007 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.03.2017. On 15.08.2018, an application under section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 was filed by the appellant-RCMC. On 20.09.2018, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 to the General Manager Hasdev Area of the writ petitioner-Company. On 04.12.2018, the writ petitioner- Company filed reply to the show cause notice dated 19.09.2018/20.09.2018. On 20.12.2018, the appellant-RCMC submitted written argument before the RLC, Bilaspur. On 28.12.2018, the application filed by the appellant-RCMC under section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 was, vide order dated 28.12.2018, disposed of after considering all materials available on record including the reply filed by the writ petitioner-Company and the General Manager SECL Hasdev Area was directed to calculate and determine the claim amount after identification and verification within a period of 30 days. In this way, the Management of the writ petitioner-Company had one more opportunity to make identification and verification but nothing was done by it. On 15.04.2019, a show cause notice was issued by the RLC, Bilaspur to the writ petitioner-Company. On 21.05.2019, the writ petitioner-Company filed reply to the show-caus-notice dated 15.04.2019. On 19.06.2019, the appellant-RCMC filed written submission against the reply dated 21.05.2019 filed by the writ petitioner- Company. A show cause notice dated 22.08.2019 was issued by the RLC, Bilaspur to the writ petitioner-Company. On 09.09.2019, the letter dated 09.09.2019 along an RRC was issued by the respondent no.2 (the respondent no.1) against the writ petitioner-Company. 11 Mr. Shrivastava submits that on 12.09.2019, a petition being WP(L) No. 207/2019) was filed by the writ petitioner-Company challenging the show 9 cause notice dated 15.04.2019 and the show cause notice 22.08.2019 (Annexure P/1 in W.P.(L) No. 207/2019) issued by the RLC, Bilaspur. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended and certain new facts, grounds and relief were added. The said petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Bench of this High Court vide order dated 26.06.2024 which is sought to be challenged herein. 12 Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in holding that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-Company was maintainable. The petition was filed in the name of South Eastern Coalfield Limited through its General Manager Hasdeo Area who has signed Vakalatnama on behalf of SECL but there is no document on record to Hasdeo Area was show that the General Manager authorized by SECL to file the writ petition. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers Private Limited reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a suit filed by the person not duly authorized is not maintainable. The writ petition, being filed by the unauthorized persons, was not maintainable and the same should have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability itself. Even as per the pleading taken in the instant writ petition. the writ petition was shown to be filed by the the Company through the General Manager Hasdeo Area but it would be pertinent to take in notice that the affidavit in support of the writ petition was not signed by the General Manager Hasdeo Area but by one Mr. R.R.R. Lakra holding the post of Senior Manger (Personnel) SECL Hasdeo Area and as such the writ petition can not be accepted to have been filed through the General Manager Hasdev Area and therefore the writ petition, being filed by incompetent person, was not maintainable and the 10 same should have been dismissed. From bare perusal of the contention raised in para 8.1 of the writ petition, it is quite clear that the petitioner in the writ petition was "General Manager" and not "SECL" and the said contention clearly supports the fact that the writ petition was filed by "General Manager Hasdeo Area and not by "SECL" but just to mislead the Hon'ble Court, SECL was impleaded as petitioner in cause title of the writ petition. The General Manager Hasdeo Area, who cannot be accepted to be equivalent to SECL, has no locus standi to file the writ petition, and therefore, the writ petition should have been dismissed. Even otherwise, there is clear contradiction on the point as to who is the petitioner in the writ petition, and therefore, the writ petition should have been dismissed. 13 Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the RRC was issued against the writ petitioner-Company on 09.09.2019 and the writ petition was filed on 12.09.2019 but even then, RRC was not challenged by the writ petitioner-Company, and therefore, the instant writ petition was not maintainable and the same should have been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has failed to see that the award dated 30.08.1990 (Annexure A/6) was never challenged by the writ petitioner-Company and as per the award 30.08.1990 the claim for departmentalization was found to be justified and direction was passed for departmentalization of Tub Repair Workers with effect from 01.12.1988 with all consequential benefits and as such there is a pre-existing right in favour of the Tub Repair Workers, and therefore, there was no error in proceedings taken under section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Further, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the entitlement of 135 labours being represented by the appellant-RCMC is disputed and the same can not be adjudicated while deciding the application under 11 section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. So far as the point of maintainability of the application under section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is concerned, it was not specifically raised by the writ petitioner-Company in their petition. Even otherwise, the application under section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 was maintainable, in view of the facts and circumstances as submitted in the foregoing paragraph. So far as the fact with regard to discussions held in the year 2015 and identification of labours is concerned, it has also not been disputed by the writ petition-Company. There was no dispute with regard to entitlement of 135 labours being represented by the appellant but it was the writ petitioner-Company who has been avoiding his liability by saying the arbitration award has been compiled without showing documents of compliance of the arbitration award passed in Case No. 06/89. So far as the calculation of the amount due to be paid is concerned, the same can be easily worked out for the reason that the wages, which is to be paid under the arbitration award, has to be calculated on basis of wage prescribed for Category-Il in National Coal Wage Agreement I (for short, NCWA). Even otherwise, it is also pertinent to mention here that in another case under Bhave Award, the amount due to be paid was calculated on basis of wage prescribed for Category II in NCWA and RRC was issued against SECL and thereafter Form H settlement was executed on 22.09.1992 and thereafter the amount was paid by SECL, and therefore, the present case (which is also under Bhave Award) deserves for equal treatment and the amounts of consequential benefits may be worked out without any dispute. The learned Single Judge has failed to see that on 23.09.1989, an agreement was executed between the writ petitioner-Company and the appellant- RCMC (then name NCWF) for settlement of dispute through arbitration 12 and Mr. H.G. Bhave was accepted as Arbitrator under section 10A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. At the time of agreement, as many as 135 Tub Repair Workers (Satish Chandra and134 others) working in Hasdev Area, whose names' list was supplied by the appellant-RCMC to the writ petitioner-Company, were being represented by the appellant-RCMC and then the said agreement was executed by the apellant-RCMC appellant-RCMC (then name NCWF) on behalf of the said 135 workers. In other words, the list of workers was well in knowledge of writ petitioner-SECL as from the date of agreement but the said fact has been concealed by the writ petitioner-Company or by the General Manager Hasdeo Area just to show that the arbitration award dated 30.08.1990 is not in favour of workers represented by the appellant-RCMC due to non- submission of name list before the Arbitrator. In fact, the writ petitioner- Company has taken no step to implement the arbitration award dated 30.08.1990 passed by the Arbitrator Shri H.G. Bhave in Reference No. 06/89 under the garb of non-submission of list of Tub Repair Workers by the appellant-RCMC (then name NCWF) before the Arbitrator whereas the writ petitioner-Company is duty bound to implement the said award and the writ petitioner-Company can make identification of Tub Repair Workers (who have been claimed to be represented by RCMC) by making verification from the data contained in Form B Register or from record of attendance in Registers in Form -D or E (as observed in para 6.16.2 of the award dated 30.08. 1990 in Reference No. 06/89). It would not be out of place to mention here that the writ petitioner-Company has never produced the above mentioned registers (statutory records) either before the Arbitrator or before any other authority till date and the same shows that the management of the writ petitioner-Company is playing game of hide and sick with the poor workers. It is crystal clear that the 13 writ petitioner-Company has not implemented the award passed by the Arbitrator - Shri H.G.Bhave in Reference No. 06/89 and in case of otherwise the writ petitioner-Company would be in position to produce document to substantiate the result/ outcome of implementation of the arbitration award passed in Reference No. 06/89. There is no illegality in issuance of the show-cause notice dated 15.04.2019 and the show- cause notice dated 22.08.2019 and in fact the show cause notices have been issued after considering all facts and circumstances of the case. All the objections raised on behalf of the writ petitioner-Company before the RLC, Bilaspur, have already been considered and decided vide order dated 28.12.2012 Case No BSP-7(03)/2018-RLC but even then the said fact was concealed by the writ petitioner-Company or by the General Manager Hasdeo Area by making false statement just to create a false claim to the effect that the impugned show cause notices have been issued with premeditated, predetermined and closed mind. The application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been left undecided whereas the application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was necessary to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14 On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Company submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference. The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the issues raised in this appeal and has passed a reasoned order. The RLC, Bilaspur could not have passed the orders impugned in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the same observing that when the award was passed, the list of 135 members 14 could not be submitted by the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 and as such, entitlement of the members of the Union was a disputed fact which could not be adjudicated while deciding the application under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act in absence of any pre-existing right. 15 Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 17 The learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition had framed three questions for determining the lis involved in this case, namely: “(i) Whether the Writ petition is not maintainable in view of the objection raised by the respondent No.3 ?. (ii) Whether subsequent withdrawal of the Writ petition bearing WPL No. 5920 of 2007 creates bar over the petitioner agitating the claim before the respondent No.1. (iii) whether application under Section 33(C)(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is maintainable before the respondent No.1 or not? 18 The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Puran Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 205, has answered the first question in favour of the writ petitioner-Compay and held that the writ petition was maintainable. So far as the second question is considered, the same has been answered in favour of the appellant. With respect to point No. 3, after taking note of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has observed that the writ petitioner-Company had taken taken a specific stand that when the arbitration proceeding were initiated for departmentalization of contract workers the Union representing their members did not submit any list of 15 the workers which has also been reflected when the award was passed. Even the Labour Department who was respondent No. 1 to 4 in the earlier petition being WPL No. 5920 of 2007, in their return have specifically stated that the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 had not submitted the list of 135 workers but they have submitted the list in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1994 for the first time, as such the entitlement of 135 workmen for departmentalization itself became disputed facts which cannot be adjudicated and decided by RLC, Bilaspur, while deciding the application under Section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act as in their favour no pre- existing right had accrued. 19 From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is quite detail one dealing with all the issues raised in this appeal, and the facts of the case has also been discussed in detail. The analysis made with respect to the questions framed by the learned Single Judge answers the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-RCMC. 20 In concluding paragraph, the learned Single Judge, while quashing the orders impugned in the writ petition viz. dated 28.12.2018 and the show- cause notices dated 15.04.2019 and 22.08.2019, has observed that the fact that when the award was passed the list of 135 members could not be submitted by appellant as well as respondent No. 3 as such entitlement of member of the Union particularly 135 labours were disputed facts which could not be adjudicated while deciding the application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in absence of any pre-existing right. It has further granted liberty to the appellant to raise industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which would decide the same in accordance with and further that if the dispute is not settled, the matter could be referred to the Labour Court 16 which has jurisdiction to decide the dispute pertaining to the claim of departmentalization of contractual employees. 21 The appellants have not been left remediless and their grievance can still be settled by the Labour Court. We fully concur with the observations and reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and no interference is warranted at this stage. 22 Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.28 15:11:59 +0530