D.P.SARAF Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-in-person calls in question the communication dated 1.8.2011 constituting JBCCI-IX and prays for quashing of the said order/communication.

(2.) Mr.D.P.Saraf, petitioner-in-person would submit that said constitution of Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI-IX) is arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and liable to be set-aside in view of decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of State Bank of India Staff Association and others v. State Bank of India and others , 1996 AIR(SC) 1685 Ford Corporation of India Staff Association v. Ford Corporation of India , 1995 AIR(SC) 1344 Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. And another v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and another , 2005 AIR(SC) 1555 General Manager, Security Paper Mill v. R.S. Sharma and others , 1986 AIR(SC) 954 Workmen of M/s Delhi Cloth General Mills Ltd. v. The Management of M/s Delhi Cloth and General Mill Ltd. , 1970 AIR(SC) 1851 , Brook Bond India Ltd. v. Workmen , 1981 AIR(SC) 1660, State of Bihar v. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal , 1961 AIR(SC) 304 Workmen of the Bombay Port Trust v. Trustees of Bombay Port and another , 1962 AIR(SC) 481 and Union of India v. S.B.Vohra and others , 2004 AIR(SC) 1402.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, would submit that there is Bipartite Agreement between the Management of Coal India and all functional Trade Unions operating in Mine/Units of Coal India known as Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry which decides the salary/wages, fringe benefits, welfare measures and social security measures to be provided to the workers of the Coal India for a period of 5 years known as National Coal Wage Agreement-IX and it is binding upon the Management and all workers of Coal India and its subsidiaries and validity of said agreement was from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2016 which has already come to an end during the pendency of the writ petition and the petitioner has also retired from service and there is no relationship between employer and employee between them and as on the date the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the terms of settlement called as NCWA-IX and as such, the writ petition has become infructuous. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Barawni Refinery Pragtisheel Shramik Parisad v. Indian Oil Corporation , 1991 1 SCC 4. He would further submit that five National Coal Trade Unions who have signed NCWA-IX are necessary party, as such, the writ petition liable to be dismissed.