31-08-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 11-12 sp/pk/ap M.A.T. 1670 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 With CAN 3 of 2026 Indian National Mineworkers Federation (INMF) through its President & Anr. -Versus- Indian National Mineworkers’ Federation (INMF) through its Secretary General S.Q. Zama & Ors. With M.A.T. 1635 of 2025 Coal India Ltd. & Ors. -Versus- Indian National Mine Workers Federation (INMF) & Ors. Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Ms. Moumita Dhar, Mr. Aurin Chakraborty. …for the appellants in MAT 1670 of 2025 and interveners in MAT 1635 of 2025. Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Mr. Siddharth Chamaria, Mr. A. Narayan Banerjee, Ms. Aspujam Singh. ..for the respondents in MAT 1670 of 2025 and appellants in MAT 1635 of 2025. Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Barnamoy Basak, Mr. P. Nath. ..for the INMF. 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 18th September, 2025 passed in WPA 26161 of 2023. 2. The said writ petition being heard along with two other writ petitions being WPA 28488 of 2023 and WPA 9002 of 2023. 3. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was originally a faction of a trade union called “Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). In view of the continuous disputes and differences with the other factions of the INTUC, the writ petitioner formed a separate trade union called “Indian National Mine Workers Federation”. 4. There is a civil suit pending before the Delhi High Court in CS(OS) 384 of 2019 between the aforesaid three fractions of the INTUC. The dispute is as to who will represent the INTUC in negotiation of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI) with the management. The meetings and result of the JBCCI lead to formulation of the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) from time to time. 5. In an earlier writ petition, being WPA 10739 of 2021 between Indian National Mine 2 Workers Federation represented by one S.Q. Zama on a rival faction, interim relief was declined by a Single Bench. However, by an order dated 10th February, 2023 passed in MAT 623 of 2021, S.Q. Zama, who is admittedly a leader of a faction of INTUC litigating before Delhi High Court, was permitted to represent a section of the workman in the last held JBCCI by a Co- ordinate Bench. 6. The said JBCCI, inter alia, pronounced upon the quantum of bonus payable to the workman in the year 2025. There are several other issues still pending negotiation and decision under the JBCCI. 7. The appellants seeking leave to appeal before this Court had applied before the Single Bench for addition of party. They had also applied for intervention in the earlier writ petition being WPA 10739 of 2021 albeit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had declined such interference on the ground that they should seek impleadment in the aforesaid civil suit now pending before the Delhi High Court. The employer, Coal India Limited is also aggrieved by the impugned order and hence has filed MAT 1635 of 2025. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the Coal India Limited that for participation in 3 the JBCCI several stake holders including trade unions are called. Such trade unions are required to be central trade unions. The Coal India had always understood and believed INTUC as a Central Trade Unions de hors any factions. In the absence of a duly elected INTUC and or real INTUC coming forth before the employer, they could not allow any fractions claiming to be a INTUC to participate in the JBCCI. They have always kept one seat vacant for INTUC. There are other central trade unions recognized by Coal India Ltd. who participate without disputes within themselves in such JBCCI. To permit one faction of the INTUC like the writ petitioner before the Single Bench to participate in the JBCCI would be unfair to the other fractions. Several hundred workmen would be remain unrepresented. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out to an order dated 24.04.2024 passed by a Single Bench of this Court when WPA 26161 of 2023 was moved. By such order the Single Bench had declined any interim relief after detailed discussions. 10. Allowing interim relief as sought for by the writ petitioners would amount to grant in final relief is what is submitted by counsel for the appellant intervener. 11. This Court, however, notices that the converse of the argument advanced by the learned 4 counsel for the appellant is equally true. If the observations of the Single Bench in the order dated 24.04.2024 are taken as the guiding factor for refusal of interim order, the same could also be interpreted as an order finally disposing of the writ petition and/or dismissing it. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the view that the subject appeals may be disposed of by requesting the Single Bench to take up the writ petition after completion of pleadings/affidavits. 13. This Court is of the view that the appellant is necessary party to the writ petition as well as the appeal. Hence the application being CAN 1 of 2025 for leave to appeal in MAT 1670 of 2025 is allowed. 14. The appellant, intervenor shall be added as party respondent in WPA 26161 of 2023. Let affidavit in opposition to the writ petition be filed within a period of one week from date. Reply, if any, be filed within three days thereafter. 15. The Single Bench subject to its business permitting may fix the writ petition itself for early hearing. The entertainability of the writ petition shall be considered by the Single Bench given the fact that CS (OS) 384 5 of 2019 is pending before the Delhi High Court on the self same issue. The Single Bench shall proceed to decide the matter if the issues between the parties can be decided on the basis of the affidavit evidence notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit before the Delhi High Court. 16. Since the object and purpose of CAN 3 of 2025 has already been achieved, the interim order dated 18.09.2025 shall be deemed to have run its course and/or has become infructuous and shall not be cited or taken advantage by any party in course of or in the final hearing of the writ petition. 17. Let a copy of the writ petition be formally served on the appellants/interveners in course of the day. 18. With the aforesaid observations, both the appeals are disposed of. 19. Consequently, all pending connected applications shall also stand disposed of. 20. There will be however no order as to costs. 6 21. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.) 7