A. Rajshekhar And Another vs The Chairman And Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3181 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              WRIT PETITION No.18836 of 2019
ORDER :

Petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 04.07.2019

passed by respondent No.4, calling upon them to avail the benefit

of lumpsum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- or salary for the period from

06.07.2018 to the date of retirement of 2nd petitioner, whichever is

less, subject to giving an undertaking that they will not claim

dependant employment to the 1st petitioner. A consequential

direction is sought to forthwith provide suitable dependant

employment to the 1st petitioner duly declaring that his case falls

under Sub-clause (i) of Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI.

2. Heard Ms. K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for

petitioners and Mr.P.Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioners is that 2nd petitioner had joined the

service of the 1st respondent-Company as a Coal Filler. While

discharging his duties on 06.07.2018, a mine accident had occurred

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

and the 2nd petitioner fell on the ground with injuries which

resulted in episodic altered behavior with amnesia of events and

memory impairment. After the 2nd petitioner was treated in private

hospitals, he was advised to apply to the Corporate Medical Board

through proper channel. On being referred to the Medical Board,

by letter dated 02.03.2019, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, after

examination of petitioner No.2, opined that he was fit for duty.

Two months thereafter, the petitioner was advised to attend the

office of Chief Medical Officer, Main Hospital, Kothagudem on

30.05.2019 and 31.05.2019 at 8.00 a.m. for medical examination,

and upon medical examination, it was found that the 2nd petitioner

was suffering from HTN, Ex-alcoholic, CVA-TIA with

behavioural problems. It was further held that 2nd petitioner was

not eligible for dependant employment in the Company, as he was

above 58 years of age and was having less than 24 months of

leftover service.

4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the learned

counsel for petitioners has filed Memo dated 11.04.2023 along

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

with a death certificate to the effect that the 2nd petitioner has died

on 05.03.2023.

5. Case of the 1st petitioner is that though he is entitled for

dependant employment in terms of Clause 9.4.0 (i) of the National

Coal Wage Agreement-VI, the respondents have denied such

benefit treating his case under Clause 9.4.0 (ii) of the said

agreement. Accordingly, he prayed for dependant employment as

his deceased-father was declared unfit for employment due to the

accident occurred while discharging his duties.

6. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that

petitioner No.2 was appointed as Badli Filler in the 1st respondent-

Company on 09.10.1981 and subsequently promoted as Coal Filler.

While on duty, the 2nd petitioner had met with an accident on

06.07.2018 and due to electric shock, suffered injuries, HTN and

episodes of altered behavior. On examining him, the Chief

Medical Officer, Kothagudem found him fit for duty, however,

advised to engage him on surface till superannuation, in view of his

mental condition. Accordingly, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer,

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur has issued fit certificate to the 2nd

petitioner on 18.04.2019 with an advice to the Superintendent of

Mines, Kasipet Mine to engage him on surface till his

superannuation. Later, the 2nd petitioner was advised to apply for

Corporate Medical Board, and upon such application, the said

Board, after examining the 2nd petitioner, declared him unfit for

further services and also held that he was not eligible for dependant

employment, as he was having less than 2 years of leftover service

and he was advised to avail the benefit of lumpsum amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- or salary for the leftover period of service, whichever

is less and to submit an undertaking on or before 15.07.2019, to the

effect that he shall not claim for dependant employment. The

petitioner did not submit any such undertaking. It is stated that the

leftover service of 2nd petitioner from the above due date was only

two months. Since the 2nd petitioner did not submit the

undertaking, he was treated as on roll of the 1st respondent-

Company till 30.09.2019 i.e. his date of retirement on

superannuation. Case of respondents is that after the accident, the

2nd petitioner was declared medically fit for duty on 18.04.2019,

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

and on his own request, when he was again examined on

31.05.2019, he was declared unfit for further service and the

Corporate Medical Board has also held that 2nd petitioner was not

eligible for dependant employment as his leftover service was only

two months. It is stated that the decisions of the Corporate Medical

Board are taken as per Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI and that the Circular dated 17.05.2013 was issued in

the interest of the employees who were declared medically unfit

and who were not having leftover service of 2 years so as to

provide some financial assistance to such families. Since the

leftover service of 2nd petitioner after he was declared medically

unfit was less than 2 years, he was offered financial assistance as

per the Circular dated 17.05.2013.

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner

was an employee of the 1st respondent-Company and the 1st

petitioner is his son. It is also the admitted case of the parties that

the 2nd petitioner had suffered severe injuries including episodes of

altered behavior due to electric shock while on duty on 06.07.2018.

In this case, the crucial aspect to be considered is whether the case

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

of the petitioners falls under Clause 9.4.0 (i) of the National Coal

Wage Agreement-VI as contended by the petitioners or whether it

falls under 9.4.0 (ii) of the said agreement, as has been contended

by the respondents. For better appreciation, the said clauses are

extracted hereunder:

"9.4.0 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place:

(i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.

(ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years.

The term 'general physical debility' would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease or other health reason leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or efficiently."

8. The petitioners contend that since the 2nd petitioner had

suffered accident while on duty, his case falls under Clause (i)

above, and hence, the 1st petitioner is eligible for dependant

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

employment. On the other hand, the contention of respondents is

that when the 2nd petitioner was examined for the first time after

the accident, he was declared medically fit for duty on 18.04.2019,

but however, on his own request, when he was again examined on

31.05.2019, he was declared medically unfit for further service. It

is their case that since the 2nd petitioner was not declared unfit at

the time of his first examination, his case does not fall under

Clause (i) referred above, but it falls under Clause (ii), and

therefore, as the 2nd petitioner was having less than 2 years of

leftover service by the said date, he was not eligible for dependant

employment.

9. It is to be seen that on both occasions, the 2nd petitioner was

examined by the same Corporate Medical Board, which ultimately

declared him unfit for further service. When the 2nd petitioner had

suffered severe injuries in the accident that occurred while on duty

and when he was ultimately declared unfit for duty due to such

injuries, the respondents cannot treat his case under Sub-clause (ii)

of Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, as it was

not a case of general physical debility. His case clearly falls under

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

Sub-Clause (i) of Clause 9.4.0 of the said Coal Wage Agreement,

as his disablement was the result of injuries sustained in the

accident that occurred while on duty.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents has referred

to a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2611 of 2020 and batch,

dated 07.12.2021, wherein, this Court has directed the

Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital to constitute an independent

Medical Board to examine the petitioners therein and categorise as

to whether their cases fall under Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii) of

Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. Since

there were number of petitioners in those batch of writ petitions

and there were different aspects to be considered while deciding

their cases, an independent Medical Board was ordered to be

constituted to consider the case of each and every petitioner

therein. But, the present case stands on a different footing, as in

this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the 2nd

petitioner had suffered the accident while discharging his duties on

06.07.2018 and sustained severe injuries and he was ultimately

declared unfit for further service in the Company. Therefore, there

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

is no further necessity to refer his case to any Medical Board, as it

clearly falls under Clause 9.4.0 (i) of the National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI.

11. Coming to the aspect of paying provident fund amount of the

2nd petitioner, the learned counsel for petitioners has referred to

Clause 63 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. As per

Clause 63(1)(b), a member of the said Scheme is entitled to get the

entire accumulated amount standing to his credit on being rendered

permanently and totally incapacitated for work in the coalfields due

to bodily or mental infirmity, notwithstanding the date on which he

ceases to be employed. Since the 2nd petitioner was incapacitated

for work as has been certified by the Corporate Medical Board due

to the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred while on duty,

the 1st petitioner being the legal heir of 2nd petitioner, is entitled

to be paid the entire amount accumulated in the provident fund

account of the deceased-2nd petitioner.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed,

setting aside the order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the 4th

JS, J W.P.No.18836 of 2019

respondent in Ref.No.MMR/PER/S/161/19/4019. The respondents

are directed to provide suitable dependant employment to the 1st

petitioner in the 1st respondent-Company and release all statutory

benefits payable to the 2nd petitioner as per Rules, within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 16.10.2023

ajr