Jharkhand High Court
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 583 of 2022
----
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union through its Branch Secretary, Shibu Manjhi,
having its office at Ramkanali, Katras, Dhanbad. ... Appellant.
-Versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (M/s BCCL), at Ramkanali Colliery, Katras,
Dhanbad.
4. The General Manager, Katras Area No. 4 of M/s BCCL, Sijua, Dhanbad.
..... Respondents.
----
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Advocate.
M/s Dimpy Halder and N.K. Sahani, Advocates.
For BCCL : M/s Indrajit Sinha and Neeharika Roy, Advocates.
For UOI : Mr. Vikash Kumar, CGC
-----
06/ Dated: 11.05.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1. By preferring this intra- Court appeal under clause 10 of the Letters
Patent Appeal, the appellant-petitioner Union has assailed the order dated
15.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(L) No. 2478 of 2019
dismissing the application of the writ petitioner-Union, whereby the petitioner
-union assailed the order of the appropriate government in not referring the
dispute to the District Tribunal.
2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass.
3. The case of the petitioner Union is that the workman working with
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited died in the year 1997. At that time, his son was
a minor, aged about five years. However in the year 2017 i.e. after lapse of
about twenty years, the dispute has been raised by the Union regarding the
compassionate appointment of the son of the workman, who died in harness in
the year 1997. The main ground on which the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition is that at present no dispute is pending between the
workman/union and the employer.
4. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the
reported case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others,
(2000) 2 SCC 455 and Prabhkar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department
& Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1.
5. Reference is made by the learned counsel for the respondents to
the said judgment Prabhakar (supra) which has been taken note of by us in the
case of Ram Pravesh Nonia Vs. Union of India and Ors. (LPA No. 387 of
2021). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited
through its Chairman and Managing Direcor and others Vs. Parden Oraon,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 299, in paragraph-7 has held as under;
"7. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment
is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which
arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to
such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,
and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that
the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was
further asseverated in the said judgment that
compassionate employment cannot be granted after a
lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such
employment is not a vested right which can be exercised
at any time in the future. It was further held that the object
of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to
get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the
death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of
time and after the crisis is over."
6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. V.
Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 in paragraph-32 has held as
under:
"32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles emerge:
(i) That a provision for compassionate appointment
makes a departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment to a post by following a
particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a
provision enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated
objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to
get over the sudden financial crisis.
(ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
source of recruitment. The reason for making such a
benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector
undertaking is to see that the dependants of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It
only enables the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis.
(iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or
offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
(iv) That compassionate appointment should be
provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It
is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
(v) In determining as to whether the family is in
financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in
mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age,
dependency and marital status of its members, together
with the income from any other source."
7. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that in
the year 2017 there was no dispute in existence. Such existence/apprehension
of industrial dispute is a condition precedent for raising a dispute, though it will
be the subjective satisfaction, based on the materials on record.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that after
twenty years of the death of the employee, the dispute cannot be raised and it
has been rightly rejected by the employer and the same has also been
confirmed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
11. Grant urgent certified copies as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Anu/-Cp2 (Ananda Sen, J.)
