EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 8870 of 2024

Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Vs
Union of India & Anr.


For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin.


For the Union of India : Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad.



Judgment reserved on : 01.04.2026
Judgment delivered on : 11.05.2026
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award
dated 26.04.2023 as passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in case No.16 of 2010 and as
published by the Central Government by publication order dated
07.08.2023.

2. Vide the impugned order, the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol held as follows:-
“Accordingly, the employees of M/s. ECL working
within Municipal Area of Asansol and Narsamuda

2

Colliery in particular who have not been provided
with company accommodation are entitled to 20%
of their basic pay as HRA with effect from
01.01.2009. It needs to be mentioned that as per
National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII Implementation
Instruction No. 16 dated 22.07.2009, no arrear
shall be payable for the period from 01.07.2006 to
31.12.2009 on revised basic pay on account of
HRA as per NCWA-VIII. Arrear of less drawn HRA
@ 5% of Basic pay from 01.07.2004 till 31.12.2009
and less drawn HRA @ 10% of Basic pay from
01.01.2009 till date be paid to the employees of
M/s. ECL working within Asansol Municipal
Corporation area and who are not having company
accommodation. The Industrial Dispute is disposed
of in favour of workmen in the light of my above
findings.
The reference case is decided in favour of
workmen/union. Let an Award be drawn in favour
of workmen to the effect that House Rent Allowance
at the rate of 15% of basic be paid to employees not
provided with company's accommodation within
the Municipal Area of Asansol with effect from
01.07.2004 subject to maximum of Rs. 2286.30
and House Rent. Allowance at the rate of 20% of
the basic with effect from 01.01.2009. The dues
shall be paid to the employees less the amount
already drawn towards the HRA, within three
months from the date of notification of this Award.
Let a copy of this Award be communicated to
Ministry for information.”
3. The petitioner‟s case in short is that the respondent trade union
raised a dispute with regard to enhanced House Rent Allowance for
the coal mine workers on the ground that the Government of India
through notification dated 17.4.1996 had declared Asansol urban
area as B-2 class city for the purpose HRA with effect from
31.1.1994, and subsequently by a notification dated 14.6.2001

3

issued by the Coal India Limited Asansol had been given the status
of A-class city.
4. It was the case of the union that consequent upon upgradation of
Asansol from C-class city to B-2 and then to A class city, with
the corresponding upgradation and the Sodepur Area coming
under Asansol Municipal Corporation, the HRA for the coal mines
workers should be appropriately enhanced commensurate to the
upgradation of Asansol from B-2 to A-class city. The Learned
Tribunal thereafter proceeded to dispose of the order of reference
by an award dated 26.4.2023 in favour of the workmen/union.
5. The petitioner in the writ application further states that in the
anvil of the phase-wise upgradation of the areas coming under
Asansol Municipal Corporation to be upgraded, the petitioner
states that the Sodepur area had been upgraded from time to time
following the government notification/classifications on HRA as
provided in the National Coal Wage Agreement‟s (NCWA).
6. The dispute not having been resolved at bipartite level, the Central
Government referred the said dispute to the learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol for
the purpose of adjudication of the issue as to whether the demand
of the union for payment of HRA at the rate of 15% was legal and
justified.
7. It is further stated that during the relevant period the coal
mines workers were getting HRA @ 10%, and as such demand
for 15% HRA and subsequently at 20% HRA was unjustified. In

4

any event, the settlements being NCWAs were not under
challenge, which had overwhelmingly decided the service
conditions of the parties during the operation thereof. The
respondent trade union is also one of the constituent members of
the said JBCCI which had negotiated the terms and conditions of
the coal mines workers including those under the Sodepur area.
The said respondent trade union has been represented through the

apex trade union in all negotiations for arriving at NCWA.
8. The petitioner further states that in cross-examination, the union's
witness failed to produce any document to show that Narsamuda
mine is coming under Sodepur area, falls within the jurisdiction of
the Asansol Municipal Corporation, and hence the coal mines
workers would be entitled to enhanced HRA @ 15% on the basis of
upgradation of areas falling under Asansol Municipal Corporation
through Government notification.
9. It is stated by the petitioner that the company has constructed
quarters/accommodation in each and every mine including those
under the Sodepur area for accommodation of the coal mine
workers. That apart, there are statutory post holders who are

required to compulsorily stay near about coal mine.
10. It is further stated that the workers, in spite of owing a duty to
apply for quarters do not make such applications rendering the
coal company to suffer financially on account of huge outgo of
HRA. ECL was suffering badly and was referred to BIFR.

5

11. It is further stated that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
and misconstrued the provisions of NCWA vis-à-vis its
implementation and binding nature thereof in terms of section 18
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the Learned
Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption that Government
of India notification reclassifying/upgrading cities/areas would
form the foundational basis for enhancement of HRA whereas the

NCWA provided for a definite fixed rate of HRA.
12. It is also stated that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
all workers of Narsamuda colliery under Sodepur area would not
be entitled to 15% HRA just because of
reclassification/upgradation of the area since many of the
workers might have actually availed themselves of the house
rent/quarters facility.
13. It is also stated that the impugned award does not take into
consideration the fact that ECL was referred to BIFR and
implementation of such award with retrospective effect from
1.7.2004 would have severe financial impact on your petitioner
company and cause utter financial detriment leading to
operational hazards. It is further stated that there are 112
quarters/allotments lying vacant at the colliery and as such
claim for HRA without considering such aspect is inequitable.
14. Mr. Majumder learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
on filing written notes on behalf of the petitioner, argued as
follows:-

6

a) Union bases its claim on notification issued by the
th th
Government of India dated 17 April, 1996 and 14
May, 1993 whereby Asansol was declared as a Group
“B-2” city and subsequently as “A” class city by the
Government of India. However, what has been referred
th
before the Tribunal are Office memorandum dated 14
May, 1993 (page 76 to 81 of the writ petition) and
rd
Office Memorandum dated 3 October, 1997 (page 95
at 101 of the writ petition), and also office
th
memorandum dated 18 November, 2004 of the writ
petition.
b) The Office Memoranda issued by the Central Govt. and
referred to above are applicable to Central Government
employees; whose conditions of service are governed by
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and not by any
industrial award. These Office Memorandum therefore
do not apply to ECL.
c) The defence of ECL before the Tribunal was that the
issue of the HRA had been covered by NCWA‟s; and
hence there can be no increase in the rate of HRA.
ECL had been paying HRA at the agreed rate in terms
of NCWA‟s to its workmen. Any award contrary to a
term of NCWA will upset the NCWA‟s which apply to
various coal companies across the country.

7

d) NCWA‟s govern the service conditions of the workmen.
HRA is a part of such NCWA‟s. A term or condition
governed by an industrial settlement cannot form the
subject matter of an Industrial dispute.
e) In NCWA VII executed in 2005 clause 8.1.3 dealt with
HRA for employees in urban areas. It read as follows:
“ Government notification/clarification on the subject will
be followed as provided in the previous agreements.
Other related issues will be discussed/decided in the
Standardization Committee within a period of 3
months”.
f) The union had not challenged the settlement as a
whole but only demanded an additional benefit as HRA
beyond the terms of settlement so as to negate the
binding efficacy of the same.
g) The Tribunal granted relief by directing the HRA to be
paid at the rate of 20% from 01.07.2004. This is
beyond the scope of the reference made to the Tribunal
by the appropriate government. Law is well settled that
an Industrial Tribunal can only answer the issues
referred to it for adjudication and maters incidental
thereto, as per Section 10 of the I.D Act granting relief
beyond the terms of reference is ex-facie bad in law.
15. Mr. Majumder relies upon the judgments reported in:-

8

i. Herbertsons Limited vs The workmen of Herbertsons
Limited and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 736, (Para 21).
“21. Besides, the settlement has to be considered
in the light of the conditions that were in force at
the time of the reference. It will not be correct to
judge the settlement merely in the light of the
award which was pending appeal before this
Court. So far as the parties are concerned there
will always be uncertainty with regard to the
result of the litigation in a court proceeding. When,
therefore, negotiations take place which have to
be encouraged, particularly between labour and
employer in the interest of general peace and well-
being, there is always give and take. Having
regard to the nature of the dispute, which was
raised as far back as 1968, the very fact of the
existence of a litigation with regard to the same
matter which was bound to take some time must
have influenced both the parties to come to some
settlement. The settlement has to be taken as a
package deal and when labour has gained in the
matter of wages and if there is some reduction in
the matter of dearness allowance so far as the
award is concerned, it cannot be said that the
settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust.”

ii. National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 371, (Para 21, 22 and
23).

9

“21. To answer the question so raised, this Court
had a look at the statutory scheme of the Act in
depth and observed: (SCC p. 658, para 8)
“8. The aforesaid relevant provisions of the Act,
therefore, leave no room for doubt that once a
written settlement is arrived at during the
conciliation proceedings such settlement under
Section 12(3) has a binding effect not only on the
signatories to the settlement but also on all parties
to the industrial dispute which would cover the
entire body of workmen, not only existing
workmen but also future workmen. Such a
settlement during conciliation proceedings has the
same legal effect as an award of Labour Court, or
tribunal or national tribunal or an arbitration
award. They all stand on a par.”
It then held:
“On the aforesaid scheme of the Act, therefore, it
must be held that the settlement arrived at during
conciliation proceedings on 5-5-1980 between
Respondent 1 Management on the one hand and
the four out of five unions of workmen on the
other, had a binding effect under Section 18(3) of
the Act not only on the members of the signatory
unions but also on the remaining workmen who
were represented by the fifth union which, though
having taken part in conciliation proceedings,
refused to sign the settlement. It is axiomatic that
if such settlement arrived at during the
conciliation proceedings is binding on even future
workmen as laid down by Section 18(3)(d), it
would ipso facto bind all the existing workmen
who are all parties to the industrial dispute and
who may not be members of unions that are
signatories to such settlement under Section 12(3)
of the Act.”
The Court stressed the principle of collective
bargaining in these words: (SCC p. 659, para 9)
“9. It has to be kept in view that the Act is based
on the principle of collective bargaining for
resolving industrial disputes and for maintaining
industrial peace. Thus principle of industrial
democracy is the bedrock of the Act. The employer
or a class of employers on the one hand and the
accredited representatives of the workmen on the

10

other are expected to resolve the industrial
dispute amicably as far as possible by entering
into the settlement outside the conciliation
proceedings or if no settlement is reached and the
dispute reaches the conciliator even during
conciliation proceedings. In all these negotiations
based on collective bargaining the individual
workman necessarily recedes to the background.
The reins of bargaining on his behalf are handed
over to the union representing such workman. The
unions espouse the common cause on behalf of all
their members. Consequently, settlement arrived
at by them with management would bind at least
their members and if such settlement is arrived at
during conciliation proceedings, it would bind
even non-members. Thus, settlements are the live
wires under the Act for ensuring industrial peace
and prosperity.”
22. In Ram Pukar Singh v. Heavy Engineering
Corpn. [(1994) 6 SCC 145 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1314]
this Court said that a settlement arrived at
between the Management and the sole recognised
union of workmen under Section 12(3) read with
Section 18 of the Act would be binding on all the
workmen whether members of the Union or not.
This is how this Court considered this question:
(SCC p. 148, para 5)
“A settlement was, however, arrived at between
the Management and the Union thereafter,
whereunder it was, among other things, agreed
that the employees who were holding the post of
Office Superintendent (Non-Supervisory) would be
deemed to have been appointed to the post of
Assistant Personnel Officer from the date they
were appointed as Office Superintendent (Non-
Supervisory) and that the services rendered by
them both in the post of Office Superintendent
(Non-Supervisory) as well as in the post of
Assistant Personnel Officer would together be
taken into consideration as a qualifying period for
promotion to the post of the Junior Executive
Officer. It was further agreed that the employees
concerned would not, however, claim any arrears
of pay. This was done because the respondent
Corporation was in a bad financial shape. The
contention that the settlement of 13-9-1990 is not
binding on the appellants because they were in a
Supervisory category and were not workmen and

11

hence the Union had no right to represent them,
has no substance in it for two reasons. Firstly, in
the settlement of 14-5-1987 arrived at with the
Union they had not only received the benefit of the
arrears of salary of Rs 1600 but also of the
revised pay scales since then. They could not
have had this benefit if they were not workmen
and, therefore, considered themselves as
belonging to the Non-Supervisory category. They
had continued to be workmen, i.e., in Non-
Supervisory category till the next settlement of 13-
9-1990. Admittedly, there was only one Union
representing all workers during all the relevant
period. The settlement dated 13-9-1990 was
admittedly under Section 12(3) read with Section
18 and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The settlement was, therefore, binding
on all the workmen whether they were
members of the Union or not.”
23. In Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1984) 4
SCC 392 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 6] this Court said as
under: (SCC p. 395, para 4)
“4. Section 10(1) confers power on the appropriate
Government to refer an existing or apprehended
industrial dispute, amongst others, to the
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute
therefore, which can be referred for adjudication,
of necessity, has to be an industrial dispute which
would clothe the appropriate Government with
power to make the reference, and the Industrial
Tribunal to adjudicate it.”

16. On the other hand the claim of the respondent/Union of India is
that ECL is bound by the orders of the Govt. of India and as such
the impugned award being in accordance with law, may not be
interfered with.
17. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal
of the materials on record, considering that the tribunal has
passed an award granting relief on and from 2004, it appears that
rd
the National Coal Wage Agreement –VI (23 December, 2000) is

12

a Memorandum of Agreement by a Joint Bipartite Committee for
Coal Industry. The said agreement provides for house rent
allowance under Clause 8.1 series and provides how the same
shall be regulated.
18. Clause 8.1.3 provides for house rent allowance for employees in
urban areas as per implementation instruction no. 27 dated
th
14 June, 2001. Asansol is classified as a ‘C’ city and the
house rent allowance rate per month has been agreed in the said
agreement at 10 per cent of basic pay. Provisions have been
made for higher house rent allowance for employees posted at
different cities, for example, though Ranchi has been classified as
the „b-2‟ city and as per Clause 8.1.4, house rent allowance for
employees posted at Ranchi has been agreed on 25 per cent of
their basic pay as per NCWA-V.
19. In the National Coal Wage Agreement VI wherein the provisions
for house rent allowance has also been made, it has been stated
therein that existing house rent allowance would apply in case of
employees as per increase in rent w.e.f. 01.07.1999.
th
20. As per implementation instruction no.43 dated 17 May,

2004, issued, Government classification was duly implemented.
21. Subsequently, National Coal Wage Agreement VII came into
th
effect, on 15 July, 2005, which provided for the provisions for
house rent allowance with an enhancement w.e.f. 01.07.2004. In
Clause 8.1.3 of Agreement VI, matching implementation
st
instruction no.7 dated 21 July, 2005 was then issued.

13

rd
22. Implementation instruction no. 10 dated 23 September, 2005
was issued providing HRA at 10% of Basic pay subject to a
maximum in respect of „C‟ class cities, and Asansol was
categorized as ‘C’ class city.
23. The same procedure was followed in NCWA VIII which came into
th
effect on 24 January, 2009. The learned Tribunal in its award
while deciding the issue in reference decided the same in the
affirmative. An enhancement was also agreed upon with effect from

1.1.2009.
nd
24. Implementation instruction no. 16 dated 22 July, 2009 was
issued in respect of NCWA-VIII. Asansol has been classified as a
‘Y’ class city and HRA was agreed upon at 20% of Basic Pay.
25. The relief has been granted from 2004 to 2009 and then from
2009 till date.
26. The petitioner appearing before the Tribunal did not adduce any
evidence but argued that a Notification would be filed showing that
Narsamuda Colliery was not within the jurisdiction of Asansol
Municipal Corporation and as such it was argued that the
petitioner is not entitled to get house rent allowance at the rate
which was applicable for areas within the jurisdiction of Asansol

Municipal Corporation.
27. The learned Tribunal relied upon the government notification and
held that Asansol has been upgraded as „B-2‟ Class city for the
purpose of house rent allowance from 31.01.1994. The Tribunal
then proceeds to hold that NCWA-VII provides for house rent

14

allowance for employees in urban areas and it has been provided
that „B-2‟ Class city will be entitled the house rent allowance @ 15
per cent of their basic as per reclassification of the cities of the
Government.
28. The Tribunal categorically held that the employees of ECL working
within the Municipal Corporation of Asansol who have not been
provided with accommodation by the Company are entitled to
15 per cent of their basic pay of HRA with effect from
01.07.2004. The difference, if any, was provided to be paid to the
employees. The Tribunal further held that the provisions of Clause
8.1.3 of NCWA – VII will be binding upon the employers and
employees. Finally, the Tribunal held that the employees of ECL
working within the Municipal area of Asansol Narsamuda Colliery
who have not been provided with company accommodation are
entitled to 20 per cent basic pay as HRA w.e.f. 1.1.2009 and finally
directed that the said benefit would be available to the employees
of ECL working within Asansol Municipal Corporation area.
29. It appears that the award has been passed by the Tribunal by
applying the terms and conditions of NCWA - VIII which came into
effect only on 24.01.2009 and would be applicable on and from
1.1.2009 on revised basic.
30. The implementation instruction no.16 dated 22.07.2009 provides
for HRA in respect of employees posted in urban areas.
31. In the list of cities annexed as per Government Notification,
Asansol (urban areas) has been in respect of „Y‟ city which as per

15

nd
the implementation instruction no.16 dated 22 July, 2009, the
employees of such cities would be entitled to 20 per cent of basic
pay, with certain terms and conditions.
th
32. In NCWA-IX and 10 wage agreement dated 10.10.2017
th
implementation instruction no. 07 dated 7 July, 2017, Asansol
has been classified as ‘Y’ City and the HRA has now been fixed at
16% for ‘Y’ class cities.
33. Now, it is for this Court to decide as to whether findings of the
Tribunal that Narsamuda Colliery would be considered to be within
Asansol Municipal Corporation area is correct or not. It is the
contention of the petitioner herein that Narsamuda Colliery does
not fall within the Municipal area of Asansol and as such Clause
8.1.3 will not be applicable to employees residing at the colliery. It
is the further case of the petitioner, that though several quarters
are vacant, the employees are reluctant to accept the
accommodation provided by the company, in order to reside within
the Municipal area of Asansol (urban area) to get the benefit of
Clause 8.1.3 and enhanced HRA.
34. The issue in the order of reference is:-
“whether the demand of Unions for payment of HRA @
15% HRA is legal and justified? To what relief are the
claimants entitled for?”
35. The Union’s case before the tribunal was that:-
“…………… The contention of the union is that the
Government of India by Notification No. 2/(43)/95-E-
11(B)/Govt. of India dated 17th April, 1996, declared

16

Asansol as urban area and as B-2 class city for the
purpose of House rent allowance w.e.f. 31.01.1994.
Furthermore, in the memorandum of Coal India
Limited, bearing no. CIL/C-5-A (vi)/50727/252 dated
th
14 June, 2001 Asansol has been given the status of
A-class city. According to the union, implementation of
the directives in the notification dated 17.04.1996 is
necessary. It is urged on behalf of the workmen that
Coal India Limited has totally ignored the notification
of Government of India by declaring Asansol as a 'C'
class city. Therefore, the workers of M/s. ECL not
having company accommodation at Asansol are being
paid HRA at the rate of 10% of their basic pay instead
of 15% applicable to B-2 class cities from 31.01.1994
to 31.12.2008 and at the rate of 20% applicable to
Asansol as declared 'Y' class city from
01.01.2009……….”
36. The National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) governs the
wages, service conditions, and benefits for non-executive coal
employees in India, primarily for Coal India Limited (CIL) and
Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Initiated on
August 15, 1967, following central wage board
recommendations, the NCWA is negotiated every 4 to 5 years via
the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (JBCCI),
with the latest, NCWA-XI (2021-2026), signed in May 2023.
37. The NCWA is crucial for maintaining industrial peace and
ensuring standard wages and welfare measures, such as
housing and medical facilities, across the public sector coal
industry in India.
38. Thus the employees of the petitioner company are bound by
the memorandum of agreement leading to the NCWA’s
executed from time to time, periodically along with the

17

implementation instructions specifying the category and class
of cities and the HRA applicable to each of them.
39. The tribunal then relying entirely on Swamy‟s manual and
government notifications applied the same to the NCWA‟s and its
implementation instructions in respect of urban areas and passed
the impugned award without taking into consideration the terms
and conditions in the respective NCWA‟s and implementation
instructions.
40. The tribunal held that Narsamuda Colliery was within the Asansol
Municipal Corporation Area and thus granted HRA as per the
government notifications and not as per the NCWA’s and
related implementation and instructions, applicable at the
relevant stages.
41. The tribunal held that as NCWA-VII, implementation instruction
provided that B-2 class cities would be paid HRA of 15% of the
basic as per reclassification of cities by the government,
Asansol was treated as a B-2 class city and the HRA of 15% was
permitted, which is not in accordance with the NCWA VII and
connected implementation instruction.
42. Unfortunately, the learned tribunal applied part of the NCWA-
VII and part of government notifications, which is clearly an
erroneous decision, considering that NCWA-VII, implementation
rd
instruction no. 10 dated 23 September, 2005 clearly provides
that as per the said agreement, Asansol is classified as ‘C’ city
and HRA applicable was 10% of Basic pay.

18

43. Thus, such an award, wherein, the terms and conditions of an
agreement, herein the NCWA’s, to be implemented is only
partly accepted and part rejected, is clearly an erroneous
decision and also an abuse of the process of law.
44. The NCWA’s and its connected implementation instructions
are a package deal to be taken as a whole (Herbertsons Ltd.
(Supra)).
45. The impugned award thus being not in accordance with law is
hereby set aside.
46. WPA 8870 of 2024 stands allowed.
47. The petitioner shall ensure allotment of quarters and if refused,
by the employee/workman, they shall not be entitled to any HRA
as per the NCWA‟s and it‟s connected implementation instructions.
48. It is further directed that HRA shall be granted, by the
petitioner, only as per the NCWA’s and it’s respective/
connected implementation instructions, as applicable from
time to time.
49. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)