JUDGMENT :

(Lapita Banerji, J.) :

1. This is an intra Court Appeal from an Order dated September 7, 2021 passed by an Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (‘MMCC’) from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner’s husband was an employee of Eastern Coalfield Limited (in short, ECL). He died-in-harness on November 26, 2005.

2. The arrears of ‘MMCC’ was directed to be paid by the ECL by October 15, 2021. The Monthly payment of MMCC was directed to be paid on and from November 10, 2021 and within the 10th of each succeeding month.

3. The Hon’ble Single Bench did not call for affidavits by observing that the issue whether the respondent/writ petitioner was offered ‘MMCC’ in the year 2005-2006 is no longer relevant. Furthermore, it was recorded that whether the petitioner was declared ‘physically fit’ in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) was also not germane to that stage of the proceedings. The Single Bench found that the writ petitioner’s cause of action was a continuing one and the appellant/ECL was obliged to give either appointment on compassionate ground or ‘MMCC’ to the petitioner.

4. The appellant/ECL preferred the Appeal on the grounds that the writ petition was not maintainable since there was an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petitioner had no right to claim monetary compensation after a long period of time. The right to claim monetary compensation was not statutory right. ‘MMCC’ was not required to be paid from the date of death of the workman/employee concerned. A copy of the writ petition was not served upon all the respondents. ‘MMCC’ is a type of mercy grant to the deceased workman’s dependant. The Appellant was not allowed to bring on record an Affidavit in Opposition to the writ petition. The petitioner was not within the ‘zone of consideration’ as per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).

5. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ECL argued that ‘MMCC’ should be paid, if at all from the date of the application and not from the date of death. He further submitted that despite being considered ‘fit’ for employment in the ‘IME’ the petitioner chose not to accept the employment offered.

6. He referred to a Judgment/Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on November 3, 2014 in APO 418 of 2014 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Smt. Mahangi Bhuiya & Ors.) in support of his contention that ‘MMCC’ was payable from the date of the application and not from the date of death.

7. Mr. Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent argued that the dispute did not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since, the ‘MMCC’ that was required to be paid to her was under NCWA and not under the 1947 Act. He denied and disputed the fact that any offer of appointment was made to the petitioner after being declared ‘fit’ in the ‘IME’. The brother-in-law of the petitioner prayed for compassionate appointment, being the brother of the deceased employee. Such employment was not granted to him being an ‘indirect’ dependant. The petitioner being a female dependant of the deceased employee was either eligible for ‘compassionate appointment’ or entitled to ‘MMCC’. The petitioner is now more than 45 years of age and therefore, can only be granted ‘MMCC’ and not compassionate appointment.

8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on record this Court finds that:

a. The petitioner is a female dependant being the wife of the deceased employee/workman.

b. The petitioner’s husband died on November 26, 2005.

c. Since, the prayer for appointment of the petitioner’s brother-in-law was rejected, she applied for compassionate appointment on January 24, 2013.

d. The petitioner appeared in the Initial Medical Examination (‘IME’) as directed by the Manager (Personnel) on December 20, 2013. There