16-09-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 10 sp/pk F.M.A. 842 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Eastern Coalfields Limited -Versus- Union of India & Ors. Mr. Manik Das. …for the appellants. Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya, Mr. Asit Kr. De. ..for the U.O.I. Mr. Shamim Ahamed, Md. Narirul Haque, Ms. Zoya Erani. ..for the respondent no. 4. 1. The subject appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7th April, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 5621 of 2026 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). 2. The writ petitioner/appellant/Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was aggrieved by an order of reference dated 10th September, 2025 made by the Central Government. The reference was made in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 read with Sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The dispute referred to was “whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL in denying regularization of underground contractual workers Sodepur area of of M/s. ECL is just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned underground contractual workers are entitled to?”. 4. Before the Single Bench and before this Court Mr. Das, representing the writ petitioner/appellant management has argued that the reference was defective and contrary to the interpretation of Section 12, Sub-Section 5 and Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay Vs. K.P. Krishnan & Ors. reported in 1960 SCC Online SC 99. 5. The Single Bench had set out paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the aforesaid K.P. Krishnan & Ors. decision (supra) as relied upon by the appellant. 6. Both before this Single Bench and this Court Mr. Das has argued that the reference could only have been made by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947. 2 7. Once the said Section 10(1) is missing from the order making the reference the invocation of power under Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 or for that matter Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act of 1947 would make the reference ex facie illegal and beyond authority. 8. Indeed, there has been some expounding by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid K.P. Krishnan & Ors. decision (supra) to support the argument of learned counsel for the management ECL. 9. The sum and substance of the dicta in paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the K. P. Krishnan decision (supra) is that even while making a reference under sub-section 5 of Section 12 of the Act of 1947 the power of the Central Government to make the reference of a dispute must be exercised only under Section 10(1) of the Act. Sub Section 5 of Section 12 is one of such situations for the purpose of invoking Section 10(1). Even if the trigger of the references based on the failure report of the conciliation officer the power to make reference under Section 12(5) of an industrial dispute to the appropriate forum is exercised only under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947. 3 10.This Court however notes settled law that a ratio of a judgment must be viewed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not otherwise. In K. P. Krishnan decision (supra) the workers demanded additional wages, bonuses and other benefits. There was no settlement that could be arrived at under the conciliation proceedings and the conciliation officer submitted a failure report. The Central Government noting that the workman of the industry concerned had resorted to ‘go slow’ and other coercive measures, refused to make reference. 11. Upon the workman approaching the High Court it was found by the Single Bench that irrelevant considerations were taken into account by the appropriate Government in refusing to make reference. Mandamus was issued upon the appropriate Government to make such reference. The order of the Single Bench was upheld by the division bench of Bombay High Court and in its entirety. 12. The Appropriate Government obtaining certificate of fitness from the High Court approached the Supreme Court. 4 13.It is clear from the aforesaid facts in the K. P. Krishnan case (supra) that the refusal by the appellant to make reference, on irrelevant and extraneous grounds and taking into consideration irrelevant materials, was the subject matter of the case before the Supreme Court. The issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the material relied upon by the appropriate Government to refuse reference was sustainable in law or otherwise. 14. The report of the conciliation officer that fell for consideration before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court contained the conduct of the workman in “going slow” as an attempt would pressurise the management. The pressure did work to some extent since the management had given certain concessions to the workman during the pendency of the dispute. 15. The Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court came to the ultimate conclusion that the refusal by the appropriate Government to make reference was in fact based on irrelevant considerations. It is essentially in this light that the Supreme 5 Court went on to observe as to whether a reference under Section 12(5) under the Act of 1947 would ultimately have to be a reference under Section 10(1) thereof. It held that even a reference under Section 12(5) would have to essentially made under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947. The aforesaid was not germane to the principal issue before the Court. 16. This, however, would not mean that clear and unambiguous portions of the legislation at sub section 5 of Section 12 of the Act of 1947 conferring powers on the appropriate Government to make reference or otherwise upon consideration a failure report submitted by the conciliation officer, is in any way watered down. 17. This Court is of the view that the object and purpose of Section 12(5) is to additionally confer powers on the appropriate Government to make reference of disputes for adjudication by the appropriate fora. Such power is in addition to the power conferred on the Central Government under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947. 18. This Court even otherwise finds that the appropriate Government while making the 6 reference in question did refer to sub section 2(A) of Section 10 in its order. 19. The language of sub section 2A of Section 10 indicates that it comes into operation whenever a reference is made under sub section 1 of Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The invocation of sub section 2A of Section 10 by appropriate Government in the instant reference along with sub section 5 of Section 12 would therefore mean that there is deemed reference to sub section 1 of Section 10. Even from that point of view and applying the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. P. Krishnan (supra) particularly those contained in paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15, this Court finds no fault with the reference in question. 20.For the reasons stated herein above, FMA 842 of 2026 fails and is dismissed. Consequently connected pending application, if any, is also dismissed. 21. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 7 (Anuj Singh, J.) 8