Heard.

1. The important issue arising for consideration in this petition is whether the action of the respondents in denying benefit of compassionate appointment to the adopted daughter of deceased employee is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual details of the case are in narrow encompass and need to be dealt with quintessentially.

3. One Ranjit Kumar Malick who was working as Office Superintendent at Sohagpur area of South Eastern Coalfields Limited/respondent No.2, died in harness on 04.08.2010. He left behind his widow and unmarried minor adopted daughter, the petitioner Ms. Hamshikha Malick, who at the time of death, was aged about 14 years. A claim for compassionate appointment was made in terms of provisions contained in Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, Chapter-IX Social Security. The claim, however, was rejected on the ground that the policy does not permit grant of compassionate appointment to a dependent, who happens to be adopted daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of equal treatment is based solely on gender discrimination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the policy provides for employment to one dependent of the worker based on laudable purpose that on account of death of sole bread earner of the family, immediate succor may be necessary to be provided for the family. This being the larger objective behind grant of compassionate appointment as a measure of social security in the public employment, there could be no rationale behind granting this benefit to legally adopted son only. He submits that once the respondents have decided in their policy that upon death of employee, one of the dependent, who may be unmarried daughter, son or legally adopted son may be granted compassionate appointment, the benefit must equally accrue to a legally adopted daughter as well. It is further submitted that the policy not only provides benefit of compassionate appointment to the category of unmarried daughter, son, legally adopted son or widow of the deceased employee but also to other category of dependents if the first category is not there. This clearly means that the purpose and object is to provide immediate succor and financial assistance to the dependents of various categories of the deceased employee, therefore, there is no reason why a legally adopted daughter should be deprived of this benefit, once, it has been found that she was actually dependent upon deceased employee.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent-South Eastern Coalfields Limited submit that the policy has been framed after long drawn deliberation of 'Joint Bi Partite Committee' settling terms and conditions of service of workman in Coal Industries. The settlement has a statutory force under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment could be given strictly in terms of provision of the settlement and not beyond the same. He submits that the policy consciously excludes legally adopted daughter because adopted son has been included as one of the dependent, who could be granted compassionate appointment, there is no mention of adopted daughter. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of compassionate appointment.

6. The policy of compassionate appointment is governed by Chapter-IX under the heading 'Social Security' of the Bi Partite Settlement between the Management and Representative of the Employees Association having statutory force. Clause 9.3.2 deals with employment to dependent of the worker who dies while in service being relevant, is extracted herein below :

“Clause 9.3.2 – Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service - In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/ payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.”

7. Clause 9.3.3 provides for grant of employment on com