Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 161
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
SMT PUTUL RABIDAS –Appellant
VERSUS
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS –Respondent
WP 4290 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 18-5-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv., Mr Chiranjib Sinha, Adv., Mr Shankar Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr Anubhav Sinha, Adv., Ms Sanchita Barman Roy, Adv., Ms Radhika Misra, Adv.
Headnote:
COMPENSATION - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - DEPENDANT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - NATIONAL COAL WAGE AGREEMENT - WORKER - [NCWA-VI, CL.9.3.3, 9.3.4, 13.3.0]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a divorced daughter of a deceased employee, sought an appointment on compassionate grounds under the National Coal Wage Agreement following the death of her mother in 2011.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment as the relevant clause in NCWA-VI, which governed the case, did not include divorced daughters as dependents eligible for such an appointment.
Issues: Whether a divorced daughter is entitled to a compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-VI) following the death of her mother, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relevant clause in NCWA-VI (Clause 9.3.3) specifically enumerates the categories of dependents eligible for compassionate appointment, and does not include divorced daughters. 2. The exclusion of divorced daughters from the list of eligible dependents in NCWA-VI is a conscious and deliberate scheme of the settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and cannot be modified or interpreted to include any person not specifically mentioned therein. 3. The Court is bound to interpret the clause in the negotiated settlement as it is, without adding or subtracting anything from it, and cannot enlarge the scope of compassionate appointment beyond the set of guidelines relevant thereto.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was held not entitled to a compassionate appointment.
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. :
The petitioner seeks an appointment on compassionate grounds under the National Coal Wage Agreement following the death in harness of her mother. The mother was employed at the Sanctoria Hospital of Eastern Coalfields Limited and died in December, 2011.
2. The petitioner was married in the year 2000, but such marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce in August, 2009. The petitioner claims that since the dissolution of her marriage she moved in with her mother and both the petitioner and her minor son were wholly dependent on the mother immediately prior to the mother’s death. The petitioner claims that she does not have any independent income or source of funds and her former husband did not provide for any maintenance or financial support for her or her child. The petitioner also claims that during the lifetime of the petitioner’s mother, the mother had filed an affidavit with the employer in 2009 indicating that the petitioner and the petitioner’s minor son were the dependants of the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner says that upon her mother’s application, the names of the petitioner and her son were incorporated in the service-book of the petitioner’s mother as the only dependants of such employee.
3. Following the death of her mother, the petitioner applied on February 21, 2012 for an appointment to be given to her on compassionate grounds. The petitioner claims that she waited for some time for her application to be processed, but finding no response from ECL despite gathering informally that a legal opinion obtained by ECL was in her favour, the petitioner raised a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking the legal opinion on the petitioner’s application. The legal opinion was forwarded to the petitioner and it appears there from that it was stated therein that “a divorced daughter falls in the category of ‘unmarried daughter’ for the purpose of employment of a dependant of the worker who dies while in service/permanently disabled”.
4. Upon the employment sought by the petitioner not being offered to her despite the legal opinion as aforesaid, the petitioner instituted WP 6522 (W) of 2015 before this court, which was disposed of by an order dated March 25, 2015 by directing the General Manager (Personnel) of ECL to consider the petitioner’s application of February 21, 2012 and to communicate a reasoned decision to the petitioner within eight weeks of the service of a copy of such order. The concerned general manager declined the application by his order of May 29, 2015 which has been challenged herein. The official quoted clause 9.3.3 of the relevant NCWA, noticed that there was no provision therein for a divorcee daughter of an employee to be considered as a dependant of an employee and referred to clause 13.3.0 of NCWA which prohibits the unilateral interpretation thereof and any difficulty in interpretation being required to be referred to a special committee. The official also noticed that the petitioner had cited the case of one Kisto Dasi where a divorcee daughter was granted employment under an order of court. The official observed that the case of Kisto Dasi could not be regarded as a precedent since that case was considered by this court “on the basis of economic condition and the respondent company had consented to provide the employment”. For good measure, the concerned official pointed out that after the death of the petitioner’s mother, she has been paid in excess of Rs.20 lakh on account of gratuity and pension.
5. The petitioner claims that when a negotiated agreement between the employees of a public employer and such employer provides for certain benefits for the employees and their dependants, the quantum of death benefits received by a dependant of the deceased employee is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing her right to obtain a compassionate appointment under the NCWA. The petitioner also suggests that in furtherance of Article 15 of the Con
