SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Anil Bauri S/o Late Pari Baurin - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent 
L.P.A. No. 247 of 2024
Decided On : 28-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjay Prasad
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar, Amit Kumar Das, Shivam Utkarsh Sahay

Compassionate appointments under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be granted after significant delays, as the purpose is to meet immediate financial needs following the sudden death of the employee.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1) - National Coal Wages Agreement - Clause 9.5.0 - Appeal against refusal to refer industrial dispute for adjudication and denial of compassionate appointment - The appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment was denied primarily due to his age being below 15 years at the time of his mother’s death, which is a prerequisite under the NCWA - The learned Single Judge declined to interfere, citing a 7-year delay in seeking remedy - The government’s refusal is upheld based on established legal precedents emphasizing timely applications for compassionate appointments. (Paras 2, 24, 29)

(B) Industrial Disputes - Reference of disputes - The appropriate government possesses the authority to assess the prima facie merits before deciding on referring disputes to the Tribunal - This assessment includes evaluating the timing of the application, which, if delayed excessively, provides grounds for refusal. (Paras 10, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought compassionate appointment following the death of his mother, a permanent employee, in 1995. Despite being eligible based on age later on, the claim was denied on procedural grounds and delays.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the order to refuse reference of the industrial dispute was lawful given the significant time lapse and preceding legal frameworks regarding compassionate appointments.

Issues: Whether the appropriate government’s refusal to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication was lawful considering the delay and age-related provisions of compassionate employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that compassionate appointment serves immediate needs and cannot be invoked after prolonged periods of survival post-death, thereby supporting the denial based on existing legal standards.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the appeal and claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual basis for the appeal. (Para 3)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court's analysis on appointment denial. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. ratio decidendi regarding compassionate appointment. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. principles surrounding compassionate appointments. (Para 16 , 25)
7. conclusion to dismiss the appeal. (Para 30 , 32)

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.2353 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 by which industrial dispute has been denied to be referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication, as also the claim of the writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been denied to be granted in view of the provision made under Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement (in short NCWA).

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) It is pleaded that the mother of the appellant, namely, Pari Baurin was the permanent employee under the respondent-BCCL and she was appointed on 21.09.1973 and she continued to render her services to the satisfaction of the respondents till she died on 23.06.1995 in harness leaving behind her son, the appellant herein.

(ii) It is pleaded that at the time of death, the age of the appellant was 12 years. He submitted representation before the respondent on 12.08.1997 and requested to keep him in live roster as his age was 12 years at the time of death of his mother for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to him.

(iii) It is pleaded that the appellant continued to approach the respondents after attaining majority in the year 2001 but the respondent-BCCL did not provide employment to the appellant in view of provision made under clause 9.5.0 of NCWA. Thereafter the appellant again submitted a representation on 24.09.2012 before the respondent no. 5.

(iv) It is further pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances raised industrial dispute through the registered Trade Union Jharkhand Janta Majdoor Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 17.06.2015.

(v) Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) issued a letter dated 09.07.2015 to the concerned parties for appearance for the purpose of initiating Conciliation Proceeding.

(vi) It is pleaded that after the Conciliation Proceeding as Management declined for agreement and failure was recorded as such the same was sent to the appropriate government vide letter dated 17.02.2016.

(vii) It is pleaded that the appropriate government issued a letter dated 18.05.2016 whereby and whereunder the industrial dispute has been denied to be referred for adjudication on the ground that "Shri Anil Bouri, the dependent son of Late Pari Bourin who died on 23/06/1995, is not entitled for compassionate employment under the provisions of NCWA-V since, his age was below 15 years at the time of death of his mother. In fact, the provisions of compassionate employment for minor under NCWA-V states that under clause 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned workers is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a Live Roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. Hence, keeping his name in the Live Roster Register does not arise".

(viii) It is further pleaded that the letter dated 18.05.2016 denying reference of the industrial dispute raised by the appellant for adjudication referred the same to Industrial Tribunal is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the appropriate government is not provided jurisdictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top