IMPORTANT POINT
The right to Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation for dependants of deceased employees is automatic upon death, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, and does not require a formal application.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal at the behest of Eastern Coalfields Limited is in assailment of an order dated March 24, 2023 passed in WPO 3145 of 2022.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent directing the appellant to pay the Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) to the writ petitioner with effect from the January 22, 2010 i.e. the date following the date of death of deceased employee with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the impugned order was passed by learned Single Judge without considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant in their report on affidavit. It was urged that the impugned order was passed under misconstruction of the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).

4. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that learned Trial Judge did not consider the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the appellant was not in a position to ascertain, among more than one female dependant of the deceased employee, as to which female dependant was entitled for employment or the MMCC, unless an application in this regard was received from the dependant claiming benefits with ‘no objection’ from others.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that there was no application for employment by the private respondent. The application dated May 26, 2010 was filed seeking appointment for the son of the writ petitioner which was governed by Clause 9.3.0 of the relevant NCWA and was not governed by Clause 9.5.0. Similarly, learned Trial Judge also failed to appreciate that payment of MMCC was governed by Clause 9.5.0 and not under clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA. It was further submitted that payment of MMCC is not an alternative for employment under clause 9.3.0.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider that MMCC was an alternate for employment only in case of a female dependant in terms of clause 9.5.0.

7. It was further contended by learned advocate for the appellant that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the original written application was filed praying inter alia for compassionate appointment of the son of respondent No.1 and in the alternative for release of MMCC for the writ petitioner. It was contended that once the option for employment has been exercised for a male dependant, there was no opportunity for the female dependant to exercise the option for employment or MMCC.

8. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that learned Single Judge erred in considering that no plausible explanation was offered by the writ petitioners as to what prevented her from approaching the court immediately on the death of her husband. The application for employment of her son was pending since 2010 which was disposed on April 26, 2018.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the impugned order is bad in law so far as it directs payment of MMCC from the date of death of the employee concerned. It was argued that learned judge was also not justified in awarding interest on due amount from such date. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellant relied upon (2008) 8 SCC 648 (Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh), (2016) 13 SCC 797 (Asgar Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India), (2022) SCC 641 (Rushibahi Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation).

10. Relying upon (2015) 3 WBLR (Cal) 464 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dewanti Kumari), learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the management of the coal companies are authorized to refer the matter to joint Bipartite Committee for interpretation of the provisions of NCWA.

11. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon the judgment in t