Jharkhand High Court

Ashok Yadav vs Central Coalfields Limited on 11 December, 2023

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P. (S) No. 4033 of 2023
                               ------

Ashok Yadav                                  Petitioner
                    Versus
1.Central Coalfields Limited

2.Director (Personnel) Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi

3.General Manager, Barka-Sayal Area, Hazaribagh.

4.Project Officer, Barka-Sayal Area, Hazaribagh.

... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sunita Kumari, Advocate

------

th Order No. 02/Dated: 11 December, 2023

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking two-fold

prayer- (i).for issuance of direction upon the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground in lieu of death of his father who

died in harness on 29.09.2000; and (ii).for direction upon

the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral benefits

and gratuity with interest in favour of petitioner.

2. So far as first prayer with regard to appointment on

compassionate ground is concerned since the death has

occurred in the year 2000 and according to writ petitioner,

he was not provided appointment in the light of applicable

National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA), as such he has

preferred this writ petition.

3. The National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) is a

tripartite agreement between the functionaries of Coal India

Limited and union representing the workers and the

concerned labour department. The said agreement has

been made in the light of Section 18(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act as such it has got statutory fervor, which has

been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors [(2007)

8 SCC 549] as under paragraph 10, which reads as under:

"10. A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds, subject, of course, to compliance with the conditions precedent contained therein."

4. Initially, the NCWA does not contain any period of

limitation but subsequently by virtue of order passed by the

competent authority, the period of limitation was carved

out for making application initially by six month. Thereafter

it was extended for one year and again it extended for one

and half years. The same was also considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) to

be reasonable period as under paragraph 10, as quoted and

referred hereinabove. The prayer sought for by the writ

petitioner is based upon the conditions of the NCWA.

5. It is admitted fact herein is that the death of the father

of the petitioner occurred on 20.09.2000. The application

for appointment on compassionate ground has been filed at

very belated stage. Therefore, it is not in dispute since the

pleading to that effect has been made in the writ petition.

6. Position of law is well settled that for the purpose of

consideration of appointment on compassionate ground the

condition stipulated in the scheme/agreement is strictly to

be adhered to.

7. Herein, this Court by taking into consideration the fact

that the death took place on 29.09.2000 and the

application for appointment on compassionate ground has

been filed on 24.06.2023, as would be evident from

Annexure 5 to the writ petition. This Court therefore is of

the view that it is not a fit case where any direction is to be

issued upon the respondent to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground since

the application for appointment on compassionate ground

has been filed after delay of 23 years, reference in this

regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others

Vs. Anusree K.B. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 133,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt the similar issue

and has observed as under paragraph 19 and 20 which are

quoted hereunder as :-

"19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

20. Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable."

8. Accordingly, prayer no. 1 is hereby dismissed.

9. So far as prayer no. 2 is concerned, which is with respect

to direction upon the respondents to release the death-

cum-retiral benefits and gratuity with interest in favour of

petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that still

such benefit has not been extended to.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-CCL

has submitted that prayer with regard to release of death-

cum-retiral benefit and gratuity, if not paid, is made before

the competent authority by filing fresh representation, the

same shall be considered by passing fresh order within

stipulated period of time.