IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 9156 of 2024

Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manik Das.

For the Respondent : Ms. Soma Chakraborty.

Nos. 4 and 5

Hearing concluded on : 13.08.2025 Judgment on : 19.09.2025

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present writ application has been preferred challenging an

award dated 31st August, 2023, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Asansol, in Reference No. 20

of 2021.

2. The petitioner‟s case is that one Hopna Majhi was employed as

„Surface Trammer‟ with the petitioner, Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “ECL”) at the Chapui Khas Colliery of

the Ratibati Group of Mines under the Satgram Area of ECL.

3. The said Hopna Majhi, while in service, died on 1st June, 1997 leaving behind his legal heirs including Rabi Majhi, the respondent No. 5 herein.

4. As per Service records of the said Hopna Majhi, his legal heirs and successors (as declared by the said Hopna Majhi during his lifetime)

at the time of his death were the following persons:-

Name Relation Budhni Mejhain Wife Rabi Majhi Son Mongla Majhi Son Lakhi Mejhain Daughter

5. The petitioner states that Budhni Mejhain, the wife of Late Hopna Majhi, applied for compassionate employment in 1998. However, such claim for employment was substituted by the respondent No. 5 as he made an application for employment on 14-12-1998 and as such Budhni Mejhain abandoned her claim for compassionate employment.

6. The petitioner states that upon receiving the application for compassionate employment of the respondent no. 5 on 14.12.1998, the petitioner‟s area level authority processed the employment file of the respondent No. 5, in regular course and was asked to submit complete claim file with relevant documents.

7. By a letter bearing Ref. No. ECL/RTB/per/2001/2693 dated 30^th July, 2001 the employment proposal/claim of the respondent no. 5 was regretted by the petitioner, as the same being found to be a belated claim in terms of the guidelines circulated vide Office Memorandum No. ECL/D(P)/47/10249 dated 7.6.2001 and re- circulated by the Satgram Area of the petitioner vide No.

SAT/Per/empl/2001/3457 dated 15/18-06-2001.

8. The respondent no. 5 did not challenge the aforesaid letter of regret in any judicial forum and neither did he raise any dispute or demur to the same and had allowed years to pass.

9. The management of ECL signed a Memorandum of Settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Asansol with the operating trade unions on 22.5.2007, whereunder the management agreed to re-examine and reconsider the old claim file and accordingly the respondent No. 5 was requested to submit his entire employment claim file with all relevant documents, which the respondent No. 5 submitted in 2008 and the same was forwarded to the Headquarters of the petitioner.

10. After revisiting the employment claim file of the respondent no. 5, he was once again not considered for employment as several years were lapsed after death of Hopna Majhi, and as such no employment was provided to the respondent No. 5.

11. The petitioner states the respondent no. 5, keeping mum on the issue for about 10 to 11 years, raised a purported industrial dispute through the respondent No. 4 on 25^th June, 2018 before the conciliatory machinery of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, as regards compassionate employment of the respondent no. 5.

12. The petitioner states that such conciliation having been failed, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by the order No. L- 22012/49/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 21.10.2021 referred the purported dispute for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Asansol (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST”) under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudicating the following issue :-

“Whether the action of the management of Chapuikh