Ellavelli Satyanarayana vs The Singareni Collieries Company ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3450 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ellavelli Satyanarayana vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 30 August, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI


               WRIT PETITION NOS.18922, 18925,
             19174, 19222, 19229, 19354, 19361, 19411,
             19417, 19420, 19422, 19428, 19524, 19563,
             19619, 19627, 19638, 19639, 19642, 19645,
             19650, 19652, 19654, 19655, 19658, 19660,
             19718, 19740, 19755, 19768, 19780, 19783,
             19798, 19818, 19831, 19853, 19863, 19875,
             19882, 19886, 19897, 19899, 19900, 19902,
             19911, 19917, 19919, 20003, 20026, 20036,
             20047, 20054, 20189, 20197, 20206, 20209,
             20221, 20228, 20229, 20235, 20237, 20256,
             20257, 20273, 20275, 20278, 20285, 20307,
             20316, 20341, 20400, 20405, 20428, 20431,
             20441, 20443, 20471, 20511, 20513, 20515,
             20554, 20626, 20633, 20634, 20652, 20673,
             20680, 20687, 20692, 20694, 20777, 20787,
             20842, 20866, 21297, 30418, 30506, 30622,
           30702, 30765, 30783, 30912 & 31136 OF 2023


                       COMMON ORDER

In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of

Mandamus declaring that the letter in reference No.RG3/PER/IR/54/CC-

450/1385 dt.23.05.2023, the letter in reference No.SRP/PER/11.003/

2757 dt.29.05.2023, letter in reference No.RG3/PER/IR/54/CC.469/ W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

1391 dt.23.05.2023, letter in reference No.SRP/PER/11.003/2750 dt.

29.05.2023, letter in reference No.MMR/PER/L/062/23/9827 dt.

23.05.2023, letter in reference No.RG2/PER/CF/09/1306 dt.25.05.2023,

letter in reference No.SPR/PER/11.003/2758 dt.29.05.2023, letter in

Ref.No.MMR/R/S/161/16/6189 dt.29.10.2016, letter in Ref.No.SRP/

PER/2-002/2020/4874 dt.18/20.08.2020, letter in Ref.No.RGP/PER/C/

54/2013 dt.19/20.03.2019, letter in Ref.No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/1787

dt.19.11.2016, letter in Ref.No.RG.I/PER/21/2433 dt.02/05.04.2019,

letter in Ref.No.RG3/PER/IR/54/CC-400/4247 dt.19.12.2019, letter in

Ref.No.RG.I/Gdk.1/W-016/16/3546 dt.26.11.2016 and letter in

Ref.No.BHP/PER/20/1722 dt.04/10.04.2019, all issued by the 4th

respondent along with the annexure thereto certifying that the petitioners

are categorized under Clause (ii) of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI and the

consequential proceedings dt.03.07.2023 issued by the 5th respondent

without properly examining the case of the petitioners with regard to

their disability with an independent mind, as illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to the earlier certificate issued under the Coal Mines Provident

Fund Scheme, 1963 and contrary to the policy under the Mines Act,

1952 and its Rules, 1955 and consequently to hold that the petitioners W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

are medically invalidated under Clause (i) of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI of

the 1st respondent company and to provide employment to the

petitioners' children as per Clause (i) of Para 9.4.0 and to pay all the

statutory benefits under the Mines Act, 1952 and its Rules of 1955 with

all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of all these Writ Petitions are that

the petitioners are all working with the respondent company in various

capacities. The respondent company is a signatory to National Coal

Wage Agreement (NCWA) and the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI

(NCWA-VI) has come into effect from 01.07.1996. It provided for

dependent employment to one of the dependents of an employee who

has been declared as medically unfit as per Clause (i) of Para 9.4.0 and

also in respect of those who were declared as medically unfit under Para

9.4.0 Clause (ii) but have not completed 58 years of age. The petitioners

claim to have been suffering from various health problems and have

made applications for examination by the Corporate Medical Board.

They were examined by the Corporate Medical Board and all of them

are categorized under Clause (ii) of Para 9.4.0 of the Agreement.

Around 158 employees have filed Writ Petitions before this Court W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

challenging such categorization and vide common order dt.30.07.2019

in W.P.No.44170 of 2016 and batch, this Court had directed the

respondents to once again forward all the medical invalidation

certificates to the competent Medical Board so as to decide as to

whether the petitioners/employees fall within Clause (i) or (ii) of Para

9.4.0 of NCWA-VI and after re-assessing/re-categorizing the

employees, directed the respondents to act in terms of the National Coal

Wage Agreement-VI and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law. Out of 158 petitioners covered in the above common order, the

Corporate Medical Board (CMB) has re-assessed/re-categorized the

earlier CMB proceedings in respect of 153 petitioners/ employees duly

certifying that their cases have been categorized under Clause (ii) of

Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI and the proceedings of CMB were served on

the concerned petitioners/employees through respective area GMs. Not

being satisfied with the said report, around 127 petitioners have filed

Writ Petitions challenging the minutes of the Medical Board and a

common counter was filed by the respondents in W.P.No.5455 of 2020.

Vide common order dt.07.12.2021, this Court had directed the

Management to refer the cases of the petitioners to an independent W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

Medical Board, i.e., Gandhi Medical Hospital, Hyderabad so as to

enable the Gandhi Medical Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to

examine the cases of the petitioners individually by perusing Para 9.4.0

of NCWA-VI and to re-categorize the cases of the petitioners by giving

a specific finding as to whether they fall under Clause (i) or Clause (ii)

of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI. Against the order dt.07.12.2021 in

W.P.No.5455 of 2020 and batch, the Management had filed

W.A.No.388 of 2022 before a Division Bench and the Writ Appeal was

dismissed and thereafter, the respondent company has forwarded the

medical reports in respect of 127 employees to the Superintendent of

Gandhi Medical Hospital, Secunderabad. The Superintendent of Gandhi

Medical Hospital, Secunderabad constituted an independent Medical

Board consisting with 15 Civil Surgeons/Professors to examine the

medical reports of the employees/petitioners of SCCL on 17.01.2023 at

2.00 PM and to categorize them under Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of Para

9.4.0 of NCWA-VI. Out of 127 cases, 121 petitioners were re-

categorized under Clause (ii) of Para 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI and 6

employees were re-categorized under Clause (i) of Para 9.4.0 of

NCWA-VI and accordingly, each individual employee was issued a W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

speaking order informing, among other things, that their cases were re-

categorized under Clause (ii) of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI. 103

employees, who are aggrieved by the reports of the Medical Board of

Gandhi Medical Hospital, have filed the present batch of Writ Petitions

stating that the Board has not properly examined them and they are

seeking to declare their cases under Clause (i) of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA-

VI and to provide employment to their children and also to direct the

respondents to further refer their cases to an independent Medical

Board, like Osmania Medical Hospital, Hyderabad or any other Medical

Board for reassessment of their cases.

3. All these matters are similar in nature and hence they were

clubbed and heard together.

4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and also

gist of their arguments.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Para 9.4.0

of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI refers to two instances.

Clause (i) thereof refers to 'disability' while Clause (ii) refers to

'general physical debility'. It is submitted that 'general physical W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

debility' has been explained as 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. He submitted that the

petitioners have submitted their applications within time and the

Corporate Medical Board has not assessed their medical condition

properly and categorized them under Clause (ii) and it was on the

direction of this Court that the Gandhi Medical Hospital, Secunderabad

has constituted a Committee for re-assessment or re-categorization of

the medical reports of the petitioners. It is submitted that most of the

doctors who were in the Medical Committee were the panel doctors of

the respondent company and have not verified the documents, but have

mechanically categorized all the petitioners under Clause (ii) to toe the

line of Corporate Medical Board.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of

this Court to the photographs filed along with the Writ Petitions to

demonstrate that in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18922 of 2023,

there was amputation of right leg above the knee and still he has been

categorized under Clause (ii), i.e., under general physical debility. He

has drawn the attention of this Court to various other photographs to W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

demonstrate that certain persons with visible disability have also been

categorized under Clause (ii). Therefore, according to him, the

committee of doctors of Gandhi Medical Hospital, Secunderabad have

not assessed the medical reports properly and have not understood the

meaning of 'general physical debility' and even in the cases where there

is visible disability due to various factors, the petitioners have been

categorized under Clause (ii). Therefore, he is seeking a direction to the

respondents to refer the medical reports of the petitioners to an

independent Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, etc., for re-

medical examination. He admitted that in most of the cases, the

petitioners had less than two years of service as on the date of making

applications to the CMD, but if they are categorized under Clause (i),

their dependents would be eligible for employment.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent company

submitted that this a beneficial and social security measure given in

National Coal Wage Agreement and the respondents have scrupulously

followed the same and on the directions of this Court, they have referred

the reports of the petitioners to Gandhi Medical Hospital and the

petitioners reports have been examined about three times at various W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

levels and therefore, it cannot be said that the reports have not been

properly assessed. It is submitted that an employee who has crossed 58

years of age and is declared medically unfit under Clause (ii) of Para

9.4.0 of NCWA-VI, he is not entitled to seek employment for his

dependant on compassionate ground, as held by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in the case of Virendra Chand Vs. Northern

Coalfields Limited 1. He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, time

and again, has held that the compassionate employment cannot be

granted as a matter of right to the dependants of the employees who,

died while in service, are declared medically invalid. He also relied

upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as it then was, in

the case of Siva Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2,

wherein it was held that where a cut-off date or age is prescribed for

application of a scheme, it is bound to cause hardship in marginal cases,

but that is not a ground to hold the provision as directory and not

mandatory. He further submitted that all the petitioners have since

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and their

names have been removed from the rolls of the company and therefore,

W.P.No.9018 of 2011 dt.12.11.2013

Civil Appeal Nos.4210, 4208, 4209, 4213 and 4226 of 2003 dt.12.08.2008 W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

they are not entitled for the benefits under the National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that the issue in all of these Writ Petitions is the

categorization of the petitioners under Clause (ii) of Para 9.4.0 of

National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. For the sake of ready reference, it is

reproduced 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.

(iii) .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

             (iv)    .... .... .... .... .... .... ...."
                                                    W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch
                                                               (Total 103 cases)

9. From a reading of the above clauses of the agreement, it is

apparent that if a person falls within Clause (i), irrespective of the

remaining service, the dependant of the worker would be eligible for

employment. The issue under consideration is with regard to the

applicability of Clause (ii) and the interpretation to be given to the term

"general physical debility" used in Clause (ii) of the Agreement. The

term "general physical debility" has been explained in the Agreement

itself. It is not in dispute that the Corporate Medical Board has declared

all the petitioners herein under Clause (ii) and after directions of this

Court, the Committee constituted by the Gandhi Medical Hospital has

also considered the medical reports of the petitioners and categorised

them under Clause (ii). However, in the case of the petitioner in

W.P.No.18922 of 2023, it is noticed that the petitioner had his right leg

amputated above knee level, due to which, there is disablement and he

has been declared as medically unfit for discharging his duties. It is

therefore not understandable as to how he can be considered under

Clause (ii), i.e., "general physical debility" and not a permanent

disability. From the meaning of the terms "disability" and "debility"

given by the Chief Medical Officer of the Singareni Collieries Company W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

Limited, 'debility' denotes a more general state of weakness or decline

in physical or mental health, while 'disability' refers to specific

impairments or limitations that substantially affect one's ability to

perform major life activities. It is admitted that there may be overlap

between the two concepts in some instances. This Court is therefore of

the opinion that where there are clear instances of disability and not a

general statement of weakness, the Medical Board ought not to have

declared such persons under Clause (ii). From the report given by

Gandhi Medical Hospital and the statement attached thereto, it is noticed

that there are certain cases where there are disabilities due to severe

diseases, such as seizure disorders, memory loss, loss of vision, etc.,

which are permanent in nature. Clause (ii) refers to general physical

debility, i.e., general physical weakness, whereas Clause (i) refers to

disability which arises from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature.

Therefore, the interpretation given by the respondents to the diseases

diagnosed in the cases of the petitioners seem to be not sustainable. A

disease which is capable of, and has the tendency of, causing weakness

which would make the employee permanently incapable of working or W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

discharging his duties regularly and efficiently should be considered

under Clause (i).

10. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to refer the

medical reports of the petitioners to Gandhi Medical Hospital,

Secunderabad for re-visiting the issue and the doctors shall consider the

cases of general weakness/temporary disablement as the cases under

Clause (ii) and where the disability is permanent in nature such as the

petitioner in W.P.No.18922 of 2023, they shall be categorized under

Clause (i). The Committee of the Gandhi Medical Hospital shall

resubmit the report within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. This order is being passed keeping in mind that

in the report submitted by the Gandhi Medical Hospital and as compared

to the report filed by the petitioners, some of the petitioners have been

declared unfit only for the posts of driver or for underground work in the

company etc., which means that they are fit for other service. Wherever

the respondents have declared the petitioners to be unfit for further

service, they may have to be considered for declaration under Clause (i)

as it appears that their disability is permanent in nature. Therefore, the W.P.No.18922 of 2023 & batch (Total 103 cases)

respondents 1 to 4 are directed to grant relief to the petitioners

accordingly.

11. With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

order as to costs.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 30.08.2024 Svv