Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 455
High Court Of Calcutta
B. Bhattacharya
EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NATA KORA - Respondent
C. W. J. (A. S.)W. P. 14460 (W) Of 1997
Decided On : 09/05/2000
Clause 10.4.1 of NCWA-II, providing for employment to dependents of workers who die in service, applies to casual employees who meet the criteria of Clause 1.1 of the agreement.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - DEPENDENT OF CASUAL EMPLOYEE - RIGHT TO JOB - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - Casual employee's dependent's right to employment - Conditions - Interpretation of agreement - Clause 10.4.1 of NCWA-II - Entitlement to employment of dependent of deceased employee - Applicability to casual employees - Conditions - Deceased employee covered by Clause 1.1 of NCWA-II - Entitled to benefit under Clause 10.4.1 - Employer's defense of casual employee status not substantiated - Award granting employment to dependent upheld - Modification of award to specify employment in same status as deceased employee - Casual worker.
Fact of the Case:
A casual employee, Basola Kora, died in service after working for 9 years at Pandaveswar Colliery of E.G. Ltd. Her dependent, Nata Kora, claimed employment under Clause 10.4.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-II (NCWA-II), which provides for employment to dependents of workers who die in service. The employer resisted the claim, arguing that the provision did not apply to casual employees.
Finding of the Court:
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, held that the employer was not justified in denying employment to Nata Kora and awarded him a job in the establishment. The employer challenged the award in the High Court.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Clause 10.4.1 of NCWA-II, providing for employment to dependents of workers who die in service, apply to casual employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that Clause 10.4.1 of NCWA-II does not distinguish between casual and other classes of workmen. The only requirement is that the deceased employee should come within the ambit of Clause 1.1 of the agreement, which covers employees who were recommended by the Central Wage Board for the Coal Mining Industries and who received the interim wage increase specified in the agreement dated November 19, 1973. Since there was no evidence to suggest that Basola Kora did not meet these criteria, the employer's defense that she was a casual employee was not substantiated.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal, with a modification specifying that Nata Kora would be employed as a casual worker, the same status in which his mother had been working.
( 1 ) IN this writ application the employer has challenged an award dated November 7, 1996, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in Reference Case No. 43 of 1988 thereby passing an award in favour of the private Respondent holding that the management was not justified in not providing job to the said private Respondent who is admittedly a dependent of one Basola Kora, a casual employee of the establishment.
( 2 ) THE following dispute was referred to the Tribunal:"whether the action of the Management of Pandaveswar Colliery of E. G. Ltd. in not providing job to Shri Nata Kora, dependent of late Basola Kora who died in service, is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Nata Kora is entitled"
( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the dependent of the worker did not adduce any evidence but the employer produced evidence. The claim of the private Respondent is based on Clause 10. 4. 1 of NCWA-II which is quoted hereinunder:"employment would be provided to one dependent of workers disabled permanently and those who meet with death while in service".
( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the mother of the private Respondent viz. , Basola Kora was in employment of the establishment for about 9 years. The only defence taken by the employer in resisting the employment of the private Respondent is that Basola Kora was a casual employee and as such, the said provisions of agreement viz. , 10. 4. 1 had no application to such a casual workman.
( 5 ) BY the award impugned herein, the Tribunal below had held mat even if a casual workman was entitled to the benefit of the said agreement and as such, the petitioner should be given a job in the said establishment.
( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the instant writ application.
( 7 ) MR. Majumdar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer has seriously disputed the propriety of the award impugned herein, by taking aid of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and by contending that since a casual worker has no right of regularisation of service, simply because such casual employee is entitled to get benefit of other compensation provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, dependent of such casual employee cannot be given job on the death of such casual employee. In other words, Mr. Majumdar contends that if the deceased employee herself would not pray for regularisation of service, her dependent cannot acquire such right.
( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the relevant provisions of the aforesaid NCWA-II, I find that Clause 1. 1 states that the said agreement shall cover all the categories of employees who had been covered by the recommendation of the Central Wage Board for the Coal Mining Industries and who have been given the interim wage increase of Rs. 39/- per month or Rs. 1. 50 per day in pursuance of the agreement dated November 19, 1973.
( 9 ) THEREFORE, if the deceased employee comes within the purview of Clause 1. 1, her dependent will be entitled to get benefit provided in Clause 10. 4. 1 not withstanding the fact that she was a casual employee. Whether the deceased was casual or regular, was immaterial for the application of the aforesaid provisions. All that was necessary was that the deceased employee should come within Clause 1. 1 as mentioned above.
( 10 ) IT appears from the materials on record that the employer has not come forward with any defence that the name of the Basola Kora was not recommended by the Central Wage Board or that she was not given the interim wage increase of Rs. 39/- per month or Rs. 1. 50 per day in pursuance of the agreement dated November 19, 1973.
( 11 ) IT is needless to mention that Basola Kora was working in the establishment for more than 9 years prior to her death which had taken place on October 10, 1982. Therefore, it is apparent that at the time of execution of the agreement dated November 19, 1973, Basola Kora was in the e
