Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Nishita Mhatre, Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Dewanti Kumari & Ors - Respondents
MAT 1013 of 2015 With CAN 6592 of 2015
Decided on : 12-04-2016
COMPENSATION - FEMALE DEPENDANT - NCWA-VI, CLAUSE 9.5.0 - SUMMARY: The Court held that a female dependant of an employee who dies in service is entitled to compensation from the date of death, not from the date of application. The NCWA-VI does not specify a time limit for submitting the application. Guidelines issued by Coal India in 1994, requiring compensation to be paid from the date of application, are not binding as they were not incorporated into subsequent wage agreements.
Fact of the Case:
The father of Respondent No.1 died in harness in 1997 while working with Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Respondent No.1 claimed appointment on compassionate grounds and payment of compensation on her father’s death. Eastern Coalfields rejected her application, stating that she had not exercised her option immediately after her father’s death. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition challenging this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the guidelines issued by Coal India in 1994, requiring compensation to be paid from the date of application, are not binding as they were not incorporated into subsequent wage agreements. The Court also held that the compensation is payable to the female dependant of an employee who dies-in-harness from the date of the death of the employee and not from the date when the application for compensation is submitted.
Issues: 1. Whether the guidelines of 1994 are binding on the workman or his dependant? 2. Whether such monetary compensation is payable immediately on the death of the employee or only after an application is made by the employee? 3. Whether it is incumbent on the female dependant to exercise her option for payment of compensation or appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of the employee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The settlement for the National Coal Wage Agreement is a bipartite settlement between Coal India and its subsidiary companies and other employers in the Coal Industry on the one hand and the workmen represented by several trade unions on the other. That settlement has been signed in conciliation and therefore is binding not only to those employees who were in service on the date it was signed but on all future workmen as well. 2. The guidelines issued on 12th/19th December, 1994 have not been incorporated in the further settlements which have been entered into by Coal India and its workmen. These guidelines were issued after the NCWA-V came into effect from 1st July 1991 and was in operation till 30th June 1996. The NCWA-VI came into force from 1st July 1996 and was operative for 5 years. Therefore, it was open for the employers including Coal India to incorporate these so called guidelines into the subsequent wage agreements. They have failed to do so for reasons best known to them. Therefore, the guidelines issued cannot take precedence over the wage agreement. 3. The NCWA is obviously a welfare measure for the employees and their dependants. Sub-Clause (i) of Clause 9.5.0 of the agreement must be read to mean that the compensation and employment would be available on the date of death of the employee. If the employment is not sought for, the compensation would be due and payable from the date of death of the employee.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with the arrears payable as per the directions contained in the impugned judgment.
Nishita Mhatre, J.:
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1. It is an absolutely frivolous and dishonest appeal preferred by the Appellant as there are judgments of several different Division Benches of this Court which have already decided the issues raised before us by the appellant. These judgments have not been impugned by the Appellant before the Supreme Court and therefore are in the field today. The appeal has been filed only to harass the respondent who is a female dependant of an employee who died on duty.
2. The father of Respondent No.1 died in harness in the year 1997 while working with the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. She claimed appointment on compassionate grounds and payment of compensation on the death of her father. The application was rejected by Eastern Coalfields on the ground that she had not exercised her option immediately after her father’s death as to whether she wanted employment or compensation.
3. Aggrieved by this decision of Eastern Coalfields, the Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order observed that it was evident that the Respondent No.1 had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in 2010, which the appellant here thought was not suitable for consideration. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kajoli Bouri vs. Coal India Limited (W.P. No. 4 of 2014) in which two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court were noticed one was in the case of Chhaya Singh Sardar vs. Coal India Limited (GA No.3117 of 2007, APOT No.518 of 2007, WP 300 of 2006 decided on 28th August, 2008) and the other in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs. Bipini Marandi & Ors (APOT 88 of 2013, GA 577 of 2013, GA 578 of 2013 with WP 597 of 2012, decided on 8th March, 2013). In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has extracted some of the relevant paragraphs from the judgments in the case of Kajoli Bouri (supra) and Bipini Marandi (supra) wherein the judgments of another learned Single Judge in Bimli Majhian vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors (W.P. no. 196 of 2013 decided on 21st August, 2013) was considered.
The learned single judge did not accept the submission of Coal India that the claim of the respondent was delayed in view of observations and conclusions in the aforesaid judgments. The judgment in the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 which was cited by Coal India was distinguished. The Court found that the judgments of the Division Bench were pronounced in respect of matters directly in issue in the present case. The Court also rightly distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Dass’s case which was in respect of the payment of pension and not for compensation payable to a female dependant of an employee who dies-in-harness. The Court therefore, held that in view of the judgments in the case of Chhaya Singh Sardar (supra) and Kajoli Bouri (supra), the Respondent No.1 was entitled to the amount payable as compensation. The arrears have been directed to be paid from the date of death of the father of Respondent No.1 within 3 months from the date of the order together with interest on the amount payable after the institution of the writ petition. The Court further directed the Appellant to realise the monthly amounts to the Respondent No.1 with effect from May, 2015 on the 10th of each succeeding month. The Appellant has also been directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent.
4. The Appellant has challenged this order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the guidelines issued on 12th/19th December, 1994 by Coal India for the payment of monetary compensation in lieu of employment under Clause 9.4.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV. These guidelines, according to the Appellant, specify that the c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
