Exclusion of married daughter from the consideration for appointment on compassionate ground offends Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Harish Tandon, J.

The petitioner's application seeking an appointment on compassionate ground stood rejected simply on the premise that the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI does not include the married daughter.

2. To address the points canvassed by the respective advocates, it would be apt to narrate the facts involved in this case.

3. Admittedly the mother of the petitioner was an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited and was working as 'Shale Picker' at the Parasea OCP Kunustoria Area, Burdwan. She died on 9th February, 2014 while in service. The petitioner appears to be the only daughter of the deceased employee and claims to be totally dependent upon her income.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a married daughter, but claims to have been dependant upon the income of her mother. An application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was taken out enclosing all the relevant documents required for consideration thereof in the month of February, 2014.

5. The Eastern Coalfields Limited communicated the petitioner by letter dated 24th April, 2014 that her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground cannot be proceeded with, as the married daughter is not included in Clause 9.3.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement - VI.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there cannot be a discrimination between an 'unmarried daughter' and a 'married daughter', which offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that any clause or term incorporated in the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI, which offends the Constitutional mandate, is required to be struck down and the married daughter shall be deemed to have been included within the Clause for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.

7. To buttress the aforesaid submission, the reliance is firstly placed upon a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Smt. Usha Singh v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2003 (1) C.L.J. 407. The reliance is further placed upon an unreported judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in M.A.T. 1298 of 2009 decided on 25th February, 2010 on the proposition that the Writ Court is competent to interfere with the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI, if any of the terms or Clauses therein violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

8. By saying that the married daughter cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration in relation to an appointment on compassionate ground, when the unmarried daughter or the divorcee daughter is eligible for being considered offends Article 15 of the Constitution, reliance is placed upon an unreported judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in case of Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 5592 of 2009 decided on 13th August, 2014

9. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the Eastern Coalfields Limited, strongly submits that the Court should not interfere with the settlement as defined under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as any dispute arising or flowing therefrom, is an industrial dispute capable to be determined by the Industrial court. To support the aforesaid contention, Mr. Majumder relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in case of Jyotish & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors reported in (1994) II Labour Law Journal 804 (Pat.).

10. He further submits that if the settlement has been arrived between the management and the vast majority of the workmen with their eyes open, such settlement cannot fail on the plea that it is not fair and just and places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in AIR 1981 SC 2163.

11. By referring another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 469, Mr. Majumder submits that the settlement, as define