The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms of the Bipartite Agreement govern compassionate appointment and provide specific entitlements to female dependents, allowing them to choose between monetary compensation and employment.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court since her claim for compassionate appointment under Respondent No. 2 was declined. Her husband died on 06.07.2003. It is not in dispute that as on the date of death of the husband, she was around 35 years of age. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of death of the husband, they had a minor son aged around 13 years.

3. The compassionate appointment is governed by a Bipartite Agreement, signed on 23.12.2000. The provisions read as follows:-

“9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependants

9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who died while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows :

9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service.

In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.

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

…. …. ….

9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant.

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under :

i. In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.

ii. In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependants is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment.

In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.

iii. In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates as paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000.” (Emphasis supplied)

4. It is the stand of the respondent-Organisation that they were prepared to grant the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the appellant, whereas it was the appellant who insisted for employment. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the second respondent is prepared to put one of the sons of the appellant on live roster in terms of the Agreement. The stand is reflected at Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the Counter Affidavit, which reads as follows :-

“5. It is submitted that Petitioner on 21.10.2004 submitted an application to Respondent, refusing to accept the monetary compensation granted in favour of the petitioner, by the Respondent on compassionate ground. Instead, Petitioner requested again to the Respondent to give her employment for herself, which was again submitted to the competent authority.

6. That Respondent replied to Petitioner's application dated 21.10.2004 via letter dated 12.01.2005, whereby, the Respondent's competent authority intimated Petitioner that as per the provisions applicable, Petitioner's son (dependant of deceased) was for keeping on the Live Roster. It is submitted that as per 9.3.0 Clause (iii) if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept in live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. Therefore, Respondent could not give employment to the Petitioner, can only offer monetary c