Smt. Uma vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 2936 Chatt

                                             1




                                                                                NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 5919 of 2021
     Smt. Uma W/o Ajay Kumar Panika Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhalugudar,
     P.O. Bijuri, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh)
                                                                      ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1.      South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
             Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat
             Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
     2.      Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited Head Qtrs,
             Seepat Road, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)
     3.      Sub Area Manager Kurja Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern
             Coalfields Limited P.O. Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.)
     4.      Senior Manager (Personnel) Kurja Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, South
             Eastern Coalfields Limited P.O. Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.)
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/10/2021

1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the action on the part of

the respondents whereby the claim of petitioner for dependent

employment has been denied only on the ground that the petitioner

happens to be a married daughter of deceased employee.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition had moved an application for

dependent employment in the capacity of daughter of late Dadoli

Panika, who died in harness working under the respondents on

20.10.2020. The deceased was working as a General Majdoor and

posted at Kurja Colliery. The petitioner's claim has been rejected vide

the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 23.08.2021 only on the

ground that petitioner happens to be the married daughter. The

reason assigned by the respondents is that the married daughter

does not fall within the ambit of dependents for the purpose of

claiming dependent employment under the provisions of National

Coal Wage Agreement (in short 'NCWA')

3. The issue involved in the present writ petition does not need much

deliberation and consideration in the light of the judgment passed by

the Single Bench of this court in WPS No.4994 of 2015, decided on

15.03.2016 in case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. &

Others. The High Court in its order after considering all the objections

and contentions that were raised by the management while denying

the dependent employment to the petitioner therein on the ground of

she being a married daughter, the Single Bench allowed the writ

petition holding that denial of dependent employment to married

daughter of employees under the respondents to be gender bias and

unreasonable and also held it to be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of

the Constitution of India. It was also held to be impermissible under

law and the High Court after went on and held that the provisions of

NCWA excluding consideration of the married daughter for dependent

employment to be unjust, unfair and opposed to law.

4. The said judgment of the Single Bench dated 15.03.2016 was

subjected to challenge in Writ Appeal i.e. Writ Appeal No.246 of 2016

along with couple of other Writ Appeals preferred by the respondents-

management. This bunch of Writ Appeals got dismissed by the

Division Bench vide order dated 03.09.2019. The Division Bench

while dismissing the Writ Appeals in paragraph 18 held as under:

"18. It is made clear that the writ Court after holding part of Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA -VI and Clause 9.4.0 (1) of NCWA - IX to be void and inoperative to the extent it excludes married daughter from consideration for dependent employment, directed appellant company to consider the claim of petitioners therein for dependent employment afresh, in accordance with law. Said direction of the writ Court is only with regard to consideration of claim for dependent employment and to grant the same subject to fulfillment of other requirements of becoming entitled for dependent employment as prescribed in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA- IX."

5. In view of the aforesaid decisions laid down by the Single Bench as

well as by the Division Bench, this court in the present writ petition is

of the firm view that the factual matrix of the present case and the

contentions put forth by the management in support of their

contentions being the same that has been raised and decided in the

aforementioned writ petition as well as writ appeals, the present writ

petition also deserves to be allowed in similar terms.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition also stands allowed in terms of

the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.246 of 2016

and other Writ Appeals decided analogously on 03.09.2019.

7. As a result, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents and

the respondents, in turn, are directed to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner for dependent employment and to grant the same subject to

fulfillment of other requirements entitled for dependent employment in

terms of the provisions of law governing the field.

8. Let this exercise be completed within a period of sixty days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

9. Of late, this Court has been receiving too many litigations of similar

and identical nature. The point of issue involved in the present writ

petition already stands well settled for well over a couple of years

now. In spite of that the respondents still are not considering the claim

for dependent employment in terms of the decision which already

stands settled in the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha

Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others and a series of judgments

thereafter which have all been upheld uptill the Stage of Supreme

Court.

10. It is high time that respondents should take necessary steps for

modifying the NCWA to the aforesaid extent and Respondent

Authorities also should take necessary steps in sending necessary

instructions to the various Area Headquarters under the SECL

highlighting these aspects and also apprise the officers in respect of

judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India

Ltd. & Others and subsequent decisions on the same issue. The

claim for dependent employment should henceforth be considered

ignoring the aspect of claimant being a married daughter. Respondent

Authorities should consider the claim of the claimants strictly in

accordance with the provision of NCWA except the ground of claimant

being a married daughter.

11. Let a copy of this order be placed before the respondent no.1 & 2 for

taking all necessary remedial steps in this regard to avoid

unnecessary litigations in the future.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved