- (1.) 'Survival after death' is the expression that aptly describes these writ petitions relating to coal mining by private agencies long after a prohibitory legislation and an order by this Court repelling the challenges to the vires of that Act. Parliament by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No. LXVII of 1976) (for short, the 1976 Act) totally prohibited all mining of coal save by instrumentalities set out in S. 3, sub-sec. (3) which we may excerpt here: (3) On and from the commencement of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976.- (a) no person, other than- (i) the Central Government or a Government company or a corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government or (ii) a person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in the proviso to cl. (c), has been granted by any such Government, company or corporation, or (iii) a company engaged in the production of iron and steel shall carry on coal mining operation, in India, in any form; (b) excepting the mining leases granted before such commencement in favour of the Government, company or corporation, referred to in clause (a), and any sub-lease granted by any such Government, company or corporation, all other mining lease and sub-leases in force immediately before such commencement, shall, in so far as they relate to the winning or mining of coal, stand terminated; (c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall be granted in favour of any person other than the Government, company or corporation, referred to in clause (a) : Provided that the Government, company or corporation to whom a lease for winning or mining coal has been granted may grant a sub-lease to any person in any area on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the instrument grating the sub-lease, if the Government, company or corporation is satisfied that- (i) the reserves of coal in the area are in isolated small pockets or are not sufficient for scientific and economical development in a coordinated and integrated manner, and (ii) the coal produced by the sub-lessee will not be required to be transported by rail. It is obvious that the provision is peremptory and the prohibition is mandatory because there is punishment provided for contravention of that provision, Section 4 (1) of the 1976 Act makes a breach of S. 3 (3) punishable with imprisonment.
(2.) This broad spectrum ban in law arrested the extraction of coal and was naturally assailed as ultra vires by the management's themselves in writ petitions under Art. 32. A bench of seven Judges of this Court heard erudite and elaborate arguments, at the end of which the writ petitions were dismissed. But it is not unusual for many litigants 'even though vanquished, to argue still'. Here, however, the challenge and challenger are of different colour. For, the petitioners before us claim to be workmen who are thrown out of employment on account of the 1976 Act and lament in this Court that they are discriminated against and on that score the law is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The plea put forward is that in regard to nationalised coal mines the workmen are taken care of and their benefits assured, while in regard to coal mines where mining is prohibited by S. 3 (3) of the 1976 Act the workmen are left in the cold. This is stated to be discrimination between workman and workman, thus contravening the mandate of equality before the law. May be, the writ missiles of the managements proved damp squibs but the workers undaunted by that rebuff, want to try a new weapon of ultra vires. The coal will go to the employers and the wages to the workers.
(3.) The Union of India resists this relief and contends that the writ petitioners are mere reincarnations of the old managements which have fought and lost and are masquerading; as workmen so as to facilitate a second challenge. The State asserts that clandestine coal mining mafia having been stopped, those racketeers are playing the maricha game through bogus workers in tears. Without going into the merits of this averment we may state that every other conceivable objection to the validity of the 1976 Act and other sister enactments had been urged in vain before the seven judges' bench. Now the alleged workmen are complaining of discriminatory denial of benefits to one class of workers. The Union of India counters this plea as factually a ruse for clandestine mining operations by managements and legally a second battle after the legal Waterloo hoping against hope that there is nothing to lose in a gamble. Even if a spell of stay were got the gain will outweigh possible losses in litigation. Indeed, the State's contention is that considerable losses to Government and traumatic consequences on the nation are being daily inflicted by such clandestine operations. The whole mischief contemplated by the 1976 Act is being continued under the guise of invalidity of the legislation and alternatively, by going to Court and getting receivers appointed so that a legal colour is imparted to lawless depredations.;