Northern Coalfields Limited vs Shakila Begum (Siddiqui)
2022 Latest Caselaw 7720 MP

                              1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                          CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 &
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                      ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2022

                  WRIT APPEAL No. 616 of 2022

      Between:-
1.    NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH
      ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
      SINGRAULI  DISTRICT  SINGRAULI  M.P.
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    NORTHERN COAL FIELD LIMITED, THROUGH
      ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND
      INDUSTRIAL RELATION) SINGRAULI DISTRICT
      SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LTD. KOLKATA
      (WEST BENGAL)

                                                       .....APPELLANTS
      (BY SHRI GREESHM JAIN - ADVOCATE )

      AND

1.    SHAKILA BEGUM (SIDDIQUI) WD/O LATE
      ABDUL LATIF SIDDIQUI , AGED ABOUT 58
      YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O NCL NM
      110 AMLOHRI COLONY, POST AMLOHRI
      DISTRICT   SINGRAULI    M.P.   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    SULEKHA SIDDIQUI D/O LATE ABDUL LATIF
      SIDDIQUI,   AGED   ABOUT   25  YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O NCL NM 110
      AMLOHRI COLONY POST AMLOHRI DISTRICT
      SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
      (BY SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE )

     This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                                     2
Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
                                     ORDER

This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.15841 of 2021 whereby the writ petition was allowed and direction was issued for consideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment and Clause 9.3.3 of National Coal Wage Agreement was declared to be unreasonable and unjustified.

The writ appeal has been filed mainly on two grounds that the appellants herein are not the author of the policy on which the writ petitioners have placed

heavy reliance. The policy is framed by the JBCCI and they have not been impleaded as a party. Appellant is carrying out the contract entered into between him and the principal employer who has framed the policy without impleading the author of the policy as party to the proceedings, writ Court has declared Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA to be illegal.

It is argued that the JBCCI has agreed to form a Wage Board in the shape of National Coal Wage Agreement for a specific period. Therefore, without impleading him as a necessary party to the proceedings, the writ Court could not have quashed the impugned order and could not have declared Clause 9.3.3 of policy to be illegal. The other ground which has been raised by the appellant is that Clause 9.3.3 does not speak of the fact that sister is entitled for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment as the word 'sister' does not reflect in the agreement - NCWA. It is only brother who is finding place in the relevant clause, therefore, writ petitioners were not entitled for consideration and case of the writ petitioners were rightly been rejected. The

aforesaid aspect was never taken into consideration by the writ Court and merely relying upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Minakshi Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L. and others (Writ Appeal No.756 of 2019), the petition has been allowed on the basis of gender bais and Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA was declared to be unreasonable and unjustified and contrary to the view taken by the Full Bench in the case of Minakshi Dubey (supra).

Counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly admitted the fact that they were party to the agreement and are fully bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. He could not even dispute the fact that the case of compassionate appointment on the grounds of gender bais was considered in the case of Minakshi Dubey (supra) and the Full Bench has held that the case of compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the basis of gender.

Counsel appearing for the appellant could not dispute the order passed by the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 (Madhubalal Sinha Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. and others) wherein Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA was taken into consideration and it was held that non-inclusion of parents and sister of the deceased workman dying in harness, in the list of dependents to be appointed on compassionate ground, cannot be said to be based upon any rational basis, rather this is wholly unfair

and absolutely unjust. It is also not based on any intelligible differentia and frustrates the very object the scheme of compassionate appointment. These immediate blood relations cannot be denied the benefit of compassionate appointment, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, simply because of the fact that they may be entitled to compensation under the workman compensation benefits admissible under the Workmen's Compensation Act as

they fall within the definition of 'dependent', given in Section 2(1) (d) of the said Act. Thus, the writ Court has rightly analysed the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA and has rightly held to be running contrary to the basic object and grant of compassionate appointment and also violative or Articles 14, 15 and 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India.

The observation made by the Full Bench in the case of Minakshi Dubey (supra) are being reflected from the impugned order passed by the writ Court. Therefore, the first contention raised by the appellant that is Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA is declared to be illegal could not have been done by the writ Court without impleading the JBCCI as a party to the proceedings. The appellants were party to the agreement and was fully bound by the terms and conditions. They are only implementing authority to the order passed by this Court and not the framer of the policy, therefore, virtually they are not aggrieved by the impugned order. They could not raise any grievance against the impugned order rather it is the framer of the policy, in case they are effected, could have approached the Court, by raising their grievances.

The other grounds which have been raised that is there is no provision of consideration of sister in terms of Clause 9.3.3 of the agreement - NCWA, the fact remains that, the aforesaid Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA is declared to be unreasonable and unjustified and contrary to the earlier view taken in the case of Madhubala Sinha (supra) as well as by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Minakshi Dubey (supra), therefore, the aforesaid argument is of no help to the appellant.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by

the writ Court in Writ Petition No.15841 of 2021. The same appears to be just and proper and does not call for any interference in the writ appeal.

The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

                                              (RAVI MALIMATH)                                        (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                CHIEF JUSTICE                                             JUDGE
                                  AM




Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.06.20 17:25:31 +05'30'