Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 April, 2026
1
07.04.2026
Item No.2
Court No. 30
Piya
WPA 5578 of 2026
Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Manik Das
... for the Petitioner
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharya
Mr. Asit Kumar De
..... for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,& 3
Mr. Asif Ikbal Baidya
…. For the Private Respondent
1. The writ application has been preferred
praying for direction upon the respondent
authorities to cancel and/or withdraw the
impugned Reference made by the respondent
no.1 vide order no. I(09)/2025/E dated 04-09-
2025 or in the alternative to set aside or
quash the impugned Reference made by the
respondent no.1 vide order no. I(09)/2025/E
dated 04-09-2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Reference is bad in law as the same
has not been done by invoking Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
1
2
3. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Bombay Vs. K.
P. Krishnan and Ors., 1960 SCC OnLine SC
99, (Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15),
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the said order of Reference is required to be
cancelled and set aside.
4. The petitioners further case is that:-
On or about 09-07-2024, the respondent No. 4
raised a purported industrial dispute before
the respondent No. 3, inter alia, claiming
regularization of several contractual workers
in the petitioner company pursuant whereto a
conciliation proceeding was initiated by the
respondent No. 3.
The conciliation having been failed and
no settlement being arrived at, the respondent
No. 3 sent its report to the respondent No. 1,
being the appropriate government, under
section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”),
inter alia, reporting failure of the conciliation.
However, the respondent No. 1,
being the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India, by the order No. I(09)/2025/E dated 04-
09-2025 referred the purported dispute for
adjudication by the Central Government
2
3Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Asansol (hereinafter referred to as the “CGIT”),
under section 12 (5) read with section 10 (2A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
adjudicating the following issue:
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s
Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying
regularization of contractual workers of
underground collieries of Satgram-Sripur Area
of M/s ECL is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the concerned workers are entitled to?”
The CGIT, upon receiving the reference
as aforesaid, registered the same as Reference
Case No. 58 of 2025.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that no reference
to a Tribunal or a board or a Labour Court for
adjudication of a dispute can be made without
invoking section 10 (1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”).
6. It is further stated that the impugned
Reference has been made under section 12 (5)
read with section 10 (2A) of the Act, which do
not empower the respondent No. 1 to refer a
dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication without
invoking section 10 (1) of the Act.
3
4
7. It is also stated that even if the appropriate
government, the respondent No. 1 herein, may
be acting under section 12 (5) of the Act, the
reference must ultimately be made under
section 10 of the Act and not otherwise.
8. The petitioner further submits that section 10
(1) of the Act is an enabling provision for
making any reference under the Act and any
Reference without invoking section 10 (1) of
the Act is bad and void ab initio.
9. The petitioner herein has relied upon
paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of State of
Bombay vs K.P.Krishnan & Ors., (Supra)
wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“9. It is true that s. 12(5) provides that the
appropriate Government may make such
reference and in that sense it may be
permissible to say that a power to make
reference is conferred on the appropriate
Government by s. 12(5). The High Court
was apparently inclined to take the view
that in cases falling under s. 12(5) reference
can be made only under s. 12(5)
independently of s. 10 (1). In our opinion
that is not the effect of the provisions of s.
12(5). If it is held that in cases falling under
s. 12(5) reference can and should be made
only under s. 12(5) it would lead to very
anomalous consequences. Section 10(3)
empowers the appropriate Government by
an order to prohibit the continuance of any
strike or lock-out in connection with an
industrial dispute which may be in
existence on the date of the reference, but
this power is confined only to cases where
industrial disputes are referred under s.
10(1). It would thus be clear that if a
reference is made only under s. 12(5)
independently of s. 10(1) the appropriate
Government may have no power to prohibit4
5the continuance of a strike in connection
with a dispute referred by it to the tribunal
for adjudication; and that obviously could
not be the intention of the Legislature. It is
significant that ss. 23 and 24 prohibit the
commencement of strikes and lock-outs
during the pendency of proceedings therein
specified, and so even in the case of a
reference made under s. 12(5) it would not
be open to the employer to declare a lock-
out or for the workmen to go on strike after
such a reference is made; but if a strike has
commenced or lock-out has been declared
before such a reference is made, there
would be no power in the appropriate
Government to prohibit the continuance of
such a strike or such a lock-out. Section
24(2) makes it clear that the continuance of
a lock-out or strike is deemed to be illegal
only if an order prohibiting it is passed
under s. 10(3). Thus the power to maintain
industrial peace during adjudication
proceedings which is so essential and
which in fact can be said to be the basis of
adjudication proceedings is exercisable only
if a reference is made under s. 10(1). What
is true about this power is equally true
about the power conferred on the
appropriate Government by s. 10(4), (5), (6)
and (7). In other words, the material
provisions contained in sub-ss. (3) to (7) of
S. 10(1) which are an integral part of the
scheme of reference prescribed by Chapter
III of the Act clearly indicate that even if the
appropriate Government may be acting
under s. 12(5) the reference must ultimately
be made under s. 10 (1). Incidentally it is
not without significance that even in the
petition made by the respondents in the
present proceedings they have asked for a
writ of mandamus calling upon the
appellant to make a reference under ss.
10(1) and 12(5).
10. Besides, even as a matter of
construction, when s. 12(5) provides that
the appropriate Government may make
such reference it does not mean that this
provision is intended to confer a power to
make reference as such. That power has
already been conferred by s. 10(1); indeed
s. 12(5) occurs in a Chapter dealing with the
procedure, powers and duties of the
authorities under the Act; and it would be5
6legitimate to hold that s. 12(5) which
undoubtedly confers power on the
appropriate Government to act in the
manner specified by it, the power to make a
reference which it will exercise if it comes to
the conclusion that a case for reference has
been made must be found in s. 10(1). In
other words, when s. 12(5) says that the
Government may make such reference it
really means it may make such reference
under s. 10(1). Therefore it would not be
reasonable to hold that s. 12(5) by itself and
independently of s. 10(1) confers power on
the appropriate Government to make a
reference.
11. The next point to consider is whether,
while the appropriate Government acts
under s. 12(5), it is bound to base its
decision only and solely on a consideration
of the report made by the conciliation officer
under s. 12(4). The tenor of the High Court’s
judgment may seem to suggest that the only
material on which the conclusion of the
appropriate Government under s. 12 (5)
should be based is the said report. There is
no doubt that having regard to the
background furnished by the earlier
provisions of s. 12 the appropriate
Government would naturally consider the
report very carefully and treat it as
furnishing the relevant material which
would enable it to decide whether a case for
reference has been made or not; but the
words of s. 12(5) do not suggest that the
report is the only material on which
Government must base its conclusion. It
would be open to the Government to
consider other relevant facts which may
come to its knowledge or which may be
brought to its notice, and it is in the light of
all these relevant facts that it has to come to
its decision whether a reference should be
made or not. The problem which the
Government has to consider while acting
under s. 12(5)(a) is whether there is a case
for reference. This expression means that
Government must first consider whether a
prima facie case for reference has been
made on the merits. If the Government
comes to the conclusion that a prima facie
case for reference has been made then it
would be open to the Government also to
consider whether there are any other6
7relevant or material facts which would
justify its refusal to make a reference. The
question as to whether a case for reference
has been made out can be answered in the
light of all the relevant circumstances which
would have a bearing on the merits of the
case as well as on the incidental question
as to whether a reference should
nevertheless be made or not. A discretion to
consider all relevant facts which is
conferred on the Government by s. 10(1)
could be exercised by the Government even
in dealing with cases under s. 12(5)
provided of course the said discretion is
exercised bona fide, its final decision is
based on a consideration of relevant facts
and circumstances, and the second part of
s. 12(5) is complied with.
12. We have already noticed that s. 12
deals with the conciliation proceedings in
regard to all industrial disputes, whether
they relate to a public utility service or not.
Section 12(1) imposes an obligation on the
conciliation officer to hold conciliation
proceedings in regard to an industrial
dispute in respect of public utility service
provided a notice under s. 22 has been
given. If in such a dispute the efforts at
conciliation fail and a failure report is
submitted under s. 12(4) Government may
have to act under s. 12(5) and decide
whether there is a case for reference. Now,
in dealing with such a question relating to a
public utility service considerations
prescribed by the second proviso to s. 10(1)
may be relevant, and Government may be
justified in refusing to make a reference if it
is satisfied that the notice given is frivolous
or vexatious or that reference would be
inexpedient. Just as discretion conferred on
the Government under s. 10(1) can be
exercised by it in dealing with industrial
disputes in regard to non-public utility
services even when Government is acting
under s. 12(5), so too the provisions of the
second proviso can be pressed into service
by the Government when it deals with an
industrial dispute in regard to a public
utility service under s. 12(5).
15. On the other hand, if the power to make
reference is ultimately to be found in s.
10(1) it would not be easy to read the7
8relevant portion of s. 12(5) as imposing an
obligation on the Government to make a
reference. Section 12(5) when read with s.
10 (1) would mean, according to the
appellant, that, even after considering the
question, the Government may refuse to
make a reference in a proper case provided
of course it records and communicates its
reasons for its final decision. In this
connection the appellant strongly relies on
the relevant provisions of s. 13. This section
deals with the duties of Boards and is
similar to s. 12 which deals with
conciliation officers. A dispute can be
referred to a Board in the first instance
under s. 10(1) or under s. 12(5) itself. Like
the conciliation officer the Board also
endeavours to bring about a settlement of
the dispute. Its powers are wider than those
of a conciliator but its function is
substantially the same; and so if the efforts
made by the Board to settle the dispute fail
it has to make a report under s. 13(3).
Section 13(4) provides that if on receipt of
the report made by the Board in respect of a
dispute relating to a public utility service the
appropriate Government does not make a
reference to a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal under s. 10, it shall
record and communicate to the parties
concerned its reasons therefor. The
provisions of s. 13 considered as a whole
clearly indicate that the power to make a
reference in regard to disputes referred to
the Board are undoubtedly to be found in s.
10(1). Indeed in regard to disputes relating
to non-public utility services there is no
express provision made authorising the
Government to make a reference, and even
s. 13(4) deals with a case where no
reference is made in regard to a dispute
relating to a public utility service which
means that if a reference is intended to be
made it would be under the second proviso
to s. 10(1). Incidentally this fortifies the
conclusion that whenever reference is made
the power to make it is to be found under s.
10(1). Now, in regard to cases falling under
s. 13(4) since the reference has to be made
under s. 10 that can be no doubt that the
considerations relevant under the second
proviso to s. 10(1) would be relevant and
Government may well justify their refusal to
make a reference on one or the other of the
8
9
grounds specified in the said proviso.
Besides, in regard to disputes other than
those falling under s. 13(4) if a reference
has to be made, it would clearly be under s.
10(1). This position is implicit in the scheme
of s. 13. The result, therefore, would be that
in regard to a dispute like the present it
would be open to Government to refer the
said dispute under s. 12(5) to a Board, and
if the Board fails to bring about a settlement
between the parties Government would be
entitled either to refer or to refuse to refer
the said dispute for industrial adjudication
under s. 10(1). There can be no doubt that if
a reference has to be made in regard to a
dispute referred to a Board under s. 13 s.
10(1) would apply, and there would be no
question of importing any compulsion or
obligation on the Government to make a
reference. Now, if that be the true position
under the relevant provisions of s. 13 it
would be difficult to accept the argument
that a prior stage when Government is
acting under s. 12(5) it is obligatory on it to
make a reference as contended by the
respondent.”
10. The sole contention of the petitioner herein
is that the reference is bad as the same has
been made by invoking Section 12(5) read with
Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It is the contention of the
petitioner that reference in the present case
could have been only made under Section
10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as it
has been made under the provision as stated
the same is bad in law and is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
11. Considering, the argument made by the
parties herein and the judgment relied upon
by the petitioner in K.P.Krishnan &
9
10
Ors.,(Supra), the following observations of the
Supreme Court in the said judgment are
relevant in the present case.
“……………A discretion to consider all
relevant facts which is conferred on the
Government by s. 10(1) could be exercised
by the Government even in dealing with
cases under s. 12(5) provided of course the
said discretion is exercised bona fide, its
final decision is based on a consideration
of relevant facts and circumstances, and
the second part of s. 12(5) is complied
with…………
………………Section 12(1) imposes an
obligation on the conciliation officer to
hold conciliation proceedings in regard to
an industrial dispute in respect of public
utility service provided a notice under s.
22 has been given. If in such a dispute the
efforts at conciliation fail and a failure
report is submitted under s. 12(4)
Government may have to act under s. 12(5)
and decide whether there is a case for
reference. Now, in dealing with such a
question relating to a public utility service
considerations prescribed by the second
proviso to s. 10(1) may be relevant, and
Government may be justified in refusing to
make a reference if it is satisfied that the
notice given is frivolous or vexatious or
that reference would be inexpedient. Just
as discretion conferred on the Government
under s. 10(1) can be exercised by it in
dealing with industrial disputes in regard
to non-public utility services even when
Government is acting under s. 12(5), so too
the provisions of the second proviso can be
pressed into service by the Government
when it deals with an industrial dispute
in regard to a public utility service under
s. 12(5)……………..”
10
11
12. Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
lays down as follows:-
“Section 12(5). If, on a consideration
of the report referred to in sub-section
(4), the appropriate Government is
satisfied that there is a case for reference
to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal], it may make such
reference. Where the appropriate
Government does not make such a
reference it shall record and
communicate to the parties concerned
its reasons therefor.”
13. The said provision clearly lays down that on
receiving a report submitted by the
conciliation officer, if the appropriate
government is satisfied to make a reference,
the same shall be done.
14. It is only when the appropriate government
does not make such a reference it shall
record and communicate to the parties
concerned its reason therefore.
15. So, it is only when a reference is not made
that reasons are to be recorded and when a
reference is being made under Section 12(5) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, prima facie
satisfaction of the appropriate government is
sufficient.
16. Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
relates to reference of disputes by the
11
12
appropriate government, when it is of the
opinion that an Industrial Disputes exists.
17. Whereas Section 12(5) requires that a
conciliation report is necessary for the
appropriate government to consider such
report and then decide as to whether to make
a reference or not.
18. In the present case admittedly there is a
report submitted by the conciliation officer
who was of the opinion that it is not fit case
for reference. But the appropriate government
in its wisdom was of the opinion that the
reference was to be made and the same is
pending adjudication before the tribunal.
19. Considering, the said facts, this Court finds
no irregularity in the reference dated 04-09-
2025, the same being in accordance with law.
20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
21. The learned Tribunal to proceed expeditiously
with the reference case.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )
12
