A.K. Shrivastava vs Union of India

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered in South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. through its General Manager, Jamuna & Kotma Area v. Union of India � W.P. No. 8368/2013 and batch of other petitions decided on 20.9.2013 whereby, challenge as to legality, validity and correctness of order by Union of India of rejecting the request of Coal India Limited for exemption from requirement of formation of works committee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been upheld in the following terms:

In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent was required to examine the application of the petitioner on the anvil of aforesaid test. If impugned order is minutely examined it will show that singular reason for rejection of the application was that the works committee is a statutory requirement as per the ID Act and it cannot be substituted by other bipartite or welfare committee. In the considered opinion of this Court the impugned order clearly shows that the respondent has not applied its mind whether the alternative mechanism shown by the petitioner were adequate for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in respect of workmen. The application was rejected at threshold solely on the ground that the statutory committee cannot be substituted on by any other committee. Constitution of the committees relied by the petitioner, its nature of activity, grievance redressal mechanism, scope of interference in industrial disputes etc. were not gone into by the respondent. Thus, in my opinion, Annexure P/1 is not in consonance with the requirement of section 36(B) of the ID Act.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the respondents utterly failed to examine the application of the petitioner seeking exemption as per relevant considerations and test laid down in section 36(B) of the ID Act. Thus, the impugned order Annexure P/1 cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, Annexure P/1 is set aside. Respondent shall decide the application of exemption of CIL afresh in the light of section 36(B) of the ID Act. Till such decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

In view of above the impugned order dated 20.3.2013 assailed in the present petition is quashed with a direction to respondent Union of India to decide the application of exemption of Coal India Ltd. afresh in the light of provisions contained u/s 36B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Till such decision is taken, respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. Be it noted that since the orders impugned have been set aside on the ground that the same has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions contained u/s 36B of 1947 Act, the respondent is at liberty to dwell upon the same on merit without being influenced by any opinion expressed herein-above or in the decision rendered in W.P. No. 8368/2013 and batch of other petitions.

The petition is allowed to the extent above. Parties to bear their costs.