The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of employment, specifically whether the deceased employee was under the regular establishment, based on various legal provisions and definitions.

JUDGMENT :

[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6040 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner was not a regular employee rather a casual worker.

2. At the outset, it requires to refer herein about the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by this Court on the basis of submission made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that since the son of the appellant has already died now there would be no question of appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, this Court had confined the appeal to the issue of monetary benefit only. The order dated 22.12.2021 is being reproduced as under:

“It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the son of the appellant has already died now there would be no question of appointment on compassionate ground, thus, this appeal would be confined to the issue of monetary benefit only.………”

3. The brief facts as per the pleading which require to be enumerated herein read as under:

The husband of the writ petitioner was appointed as Wagon Loader of Sirka Colliery of M/s CCL and when the management has deprived the benefit/facilities which her husband was entitled to, a dispute was raised by the Union which was numbered as Reference Case No. 76 of 1985 making reference to the effect that:

“Whether the demand of United Coal Worker’s Union that the Wagon Loaders mentioned in the Annexure to this Order should be paid appropriate wages directly by the management of Sirka Colliery of Messrs Central Coalfields Limited and that their record of employment should be maintained properly by the said management is justified? If so, to what relief are the said wagon loaders entitled?”

The writ petitioner claims that the nature of appointment of her husband was of a regular employee and when he died in harness on 26.02.2006, the dependant became entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground under the National Coal Wage Agreement. But, the authority have taken no decision and as such, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6040 of 2018 was filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pass final order of appointment to be made in favour of her son under para-9.3.2 of the NCWA as also for direction upon the respondents not to discriminate the writ petitioner and to extend the benefit of monetary compensation.

The respondents appeared and contested the case by taking the ground that the case of the writ petitioner is not to be considered since the nature of appointment of her husband was not of a regular employee rather of a daily rated worker.

The learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the husband of the writ petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent-management, as such, not found the case of the son of the writ petitioner to be fit for consideration of appointment under the provision of para 9.3.2 of the NCWA, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

4. Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Mohini Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefit as per the condition stipulated under the NCWA. According to the learned counsel, the condition has been stipulated in the NCWA to the effect that the monetary benefit will be paid by way of giving aid to the dependant of the deceased family wherein no appointment is being provided to the dependant of the deceased employee.

Since herein, the son of the appellant has already died, therefore, there is no question of his appointment but the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefit.

5. Per contra, Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent- CCL has submitted th