ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 20th June, 1984 (Anx. 1), whereby the employees working in the Rajasthan Fluorspar Project, Mando -ki -Pal, Dungarpur were transferred to various other mines under the Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (here in after referred to as the respondent Corporation) because of the fact that in some of mines mineral has exhausted or Fluorspar Mineral of requisite grade is not available. It is this order which is being sought to be challenged by the petitioner, the Fluorite Mines Mazdoor Sangh, Hando -ki -Pal, Dungarpur, through the present writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner is a trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act and it has 475 workmen as its members working in the respondent Corporation and they are employed at the Rajasthan Fluorspar Project Mando -ki -Pal, Dungarpur. The total number of workmen employed in the six mines, viz., Kahila, Nava Gaon, Gahuwada, Thorewali, Bhatwali, Bhanwaria -ka -Naka, under the said Rajasthan Fluorspar Project Mando -ki -Pal is about 1,150, The respondent Corporation is a registered company registered under the Indian Compaeies Act, 1956 and according to Articles of Association it is clear that it is controlled by the Officers of the State, therefore the respondent Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent Corporation is running several projects at several places in Rajasthan, one of them being the Rajasthan Fluorspar Project, Mando -ki -Pal. It has been submitted that a common seniority is maintained of all the six mines mentioned above. Recruitment, is also common in all the six mines. There is one Standing Order for these six mines. It has also been submitted that there is a common promotion policy and various other aspects have been shown in order to show that this is one establishment. Though all these details were initially mentioned in the writ petition but after filing a reply a detailed rejoinder has been filed more than the size of the writ petition and other various documents have been filed from time to time to show that this is a one establishment. On 1st July, 1964 when the mineral material of requisite grade has been exhausted and whatever is left was not of requisite quality the mines at Bhanwaria -ka -Naka was closed and the workers working on the said mines were accordingly transferred to the Gypsum Project, Bisrasar (village Bisrasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Ganganagar). Similar orders were passed in respect of Nava Gao, Thorwali, Bhatwali Mines in the Mando -ki -Pal Project. A reply has been filed by the respondent Corporation and it has been submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition because the petitioner Union does not represent the majority of the workers or a sizeable part of the workmen. The Rajasthan Khaniz Mazdoor Federation is the recognized Union and bargaining agent for the overwhelming majority of the workers. It has been submitted that the petitioner Union with a malafide intention trying to establish its foot -hold with the workmen by taking up the issue which is not in the benefit of the labour and the industry. Secondly it had been submitted that the petitioner has raised various disputed questions of fact and the proper forum for the petitioner is to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, which was the proper forum created under the Act, therefore the present writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of statutory alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that this will involve serious disputed questions of fact for which the proper forum is the Tribunal and not the present forum. It has further been submitted that the Central Government is the appropriate Government for the mines therefore the amendment made by the Rajasthan Government will not be applicable. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has taken contradictory pleas, at one place the petitioner says that the respondent Corporation is one establishment and at other time the petitioner submitted that the mines are separate establishments, therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to take such contradictory position. It has further been submitted that the members of the petitioner Union are not being retrenched but they are offered the alternative employment under the same employer at the different mines, therefore it is not necessary to go into the question of the closure as the services of the workers are not being terminated. Apart from these preliminary objections, a detailed parawise reply has also been filed and it has been submitted that the petitioner Union does not have membership of 475 workers. It has been submitted that they are creating unnecessary dissatisfaction amongst the workers by carrying on false propaganda and misguiding some of the workers. The majority of the workmen is being represented by the Rajasthan Khaniz Mazdoor Federation and it has been submitted that an agreement has been reached between this Union and the management and clause 8 of the agreement which is relevant for the present purposes reads as under: 8. That the Federation also agrees that they will not agitate if due to exhaustion of reserves or otherwise closure of any mine, if the workmen who become surplus of such mines are transferred to other mines of the Corporation. It has further been submitted that the respondent Corporation is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus the present writ petition is not maintainable. It has further submitted that there is no common seniority, and common method of recruitment. These six matters relate to individual mines. Thus, all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been denied. It has been pointed out that the respondent Corporation has multifarious activities such as exploiting and marketing various minerals like High -grade lime stone, Bentonite, Graphite, Rock phosphate, land, zinc, copper, Gypsum, Tunguston, Sarytes, Fluorspar, Slate, Marbles etc. at different places in different mines in the State of Rajasthan. In this back ground Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of various documents which have been filed along with the writ petition has tried to pursuade me that this is one establishment, which employed more than 1150 persons, therefore it cannot be closed except following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 250 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has also pointed out that 250 workers have either been transferred to other mines or they have taken the benefit which were offered to them during the pendency of this writ petition. It is only 63 persons who are adament. Mr. Anand learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has pointed out that in order to maintain industrial peace with an industrial harmony as arrived at and the matter has already been settled amongst all the workers and only 63 workers have not settled their claims and the petitioner Union, who is unnecessarily trying to disturb the industrial peace, this court should not interfere with this matter in the larger interest of the Industrial peace. Detailed arguments were heard in regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions and with regard to the preliminary objections as mentioned above.
(3.) THE principal submission which has been placed for my consideration is whether all the six mines of the Flouorspar Project Mando -ki -Pal constitute one establishment or not. In order to arrive at whether this constitutes one establishment or not, after surveying all the documents which have been placed for my consideration by both the parties, I do not want to record any finding because of the disputed claim from both the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Standing Orders, so called seniority list, common promotion policy, balance sheet. All the contentions raised by the petitioner have been denied by the respondent Corporation. It has also been categorically denied by filing an affidavit of L.N. Bhattacharjee that in fact the seniority is maintained mines -wise. I do not want to record any finding for the reason that it might prejudice the case of the petitioner. In view of the conflicting claims of both the parties the proper course would be that the matter should be agitated before the Tribunal where both the parties can lead necessary evidence whether it is one establishment or not.;