Dismissed¶43

Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Dec 2025WP(C)/7614/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/7614/2017; Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors.; Justice Devashis Baruah; judgment dated 02.12.2025; Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Section 9(a) I.D. Act; Labour Court Assam; Reference Case No.8/2009; award dated 30.05.2016; notification GLR.130/99/52 dated 13.07.2009; Cement Corporation of India Bokajan; promotion; seniority; DPC; certiorari; writ dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner failed to show who the members of its Union deprived of service benefits were, and what deprivation was alleged before the Labour Court, Assam; accordingly there was no good ground for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari. ¶42

Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010152122017

2024:GAU-AS:7620

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7614/2017

¶6

BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION BOKAJAN IN THE DISTRICT OF KARBI ANGLONG, PIN-782490 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI PRATAP BORAH

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES NEW DELHI-1

¶9

2:STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR and EMPLOYMENT DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

3:THE CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 87 NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI-100019

¶12

4:GENERAL MANAGER CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. P.O. BOKAJAN DIST- KARBI ANGLONG PIN-782490

¶13

5:THE MANAGER P and A CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. P.O.BOKAJAN DIST- KARBI ANGLONG PIN-782490

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

6:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER P and A CCI LTD. BOKAJAN

¶16

PIN-78249

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶19

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. R. A. Naser, Advocate

¶20

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. B. P. Sarmah, Advocate : Mr. S. R. Baruah, Government Advocate : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC

¶21

Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A

¶22

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 02.12.2025

¶23

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

¶24

Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

¶25

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶26

Heard Mr. S. R. A. Naser, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. I have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶27

The Petitioner herein has challenged the award dated 30.05.2016

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

passed in Reference Case No.8/2009 whereby the learned Labour Court, Assam had decided the reference against the Petitioner.

¶30

It is seen from the materials on record that the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department vide a notification No.GLR.130/99/52 dated 13.07.2009 had referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Assam for adjudication. The said questions which were referred are reproduced herein under:

¶31

“1. Whether the management of CCI Ltd. Bokajan/New Delhi-3 is/are justified to deprive the member of the Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union (BCCEU) from their legitimate promotion in time as per the rule in spite of their seniority status as compared to promoted workmen/employees who were given promotion vide order no.BKJ/Pers/4(9)/2008 dated 11.3.2008?

¶32

Whether the management of CCI Ltd., Bokajan/New Delhi-3 is/are justified by not giving the promotion in time as per the rule or not issued notice Under Section 9(a) of the I.D. Act, to these employees/workmen who were either dead or retired from service without getting promotion for long 15/20 years in service?

¶33

If the CCI management is/are not justified, then all the eligible (as per the rule) employees/workmen should be promoted with retrospective effect and restore their seniority status in the upgraded list with all back benefit?

¶34

If the CCI management is/are not justified in charging the promotional rule/Guideline without serving the notice under section 9(a) of the

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

Industrial Dispute Act, then retired employees/workmen and deceased family members should be given the financial benefits or any other benefits Court may deemed fit and proper?”

¶37

The record reveals that on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, written statements were filed. On behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, evidence was issued but the Petitioner side did not adduce any evidence. The learned Labour Court, Assam vide the impugned award dated 30.05.2016 decided the questions so referred against the Petitioner and it is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court, Assam decided the said proceedings not in the proper manner as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without further taking into account that the members of the Petitioner Union were being deprived of various service benefits which includes the way structure, promotion earned leave, North East allowance, house building allowance etc. whereas other groups were given such benefits.

¶39

Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the Respondent No.3 is a Government of India undertaking. For the purpose of granting promotion, it holds DPC and those employees who have qualified in those DPCs have been granted promotion. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993, all employees/workmen working under the Respondent No.3 who were eligible were asked to appear in the DPC and in

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

pursuance to those DPCs, those persons who qualified were granted promotion. The learned Senior counsel submitted that these aspects were brought on record by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in their written statement as well as by adducing evidence however it would be seen that the workmen union did not cross-examined the witness on merits. Additionally, the workmen union also did not adduce any evidence as to what were the deprivations which had led to the dispute.

¶42

This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also upon perusal of the impugned award dated 30.05.2016 is of the opinion that as the Petitioner herein have failed to show as to who are the members of its union who have been deprived and what is the deprivation which has been alleged before the learned Labour Court, Assam. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no good ground for exercising its jurisdiction for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari in the facts of the instant case.

¶43

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

¶44

However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pabitra Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sahadul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sahadul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Cadila Prarmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs the Central Board of Trustees and 3 Ors.

Sri Debabrata Bose, Vs M/S Midmark India Art Ltd.