Jharkhand High Court
Munki Devi vs The Central Coalfields Limited Through ... on 5 February, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2014 (3) AJR 326
Author: R. Banumathi
Bench: Chief Justice, Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 444 of 2013
Munki Devi ... .... .... Appellant
Vs.
The Central Coalfields Limited through
its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ranchi & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR.
------
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Order No. 4 ------ Dated 5th February, 2014
This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against
the order of learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No.
7807 of 2006, by which, the learned Single Judge disposed
of the writ petition directing the appellant to approach the
respondent- C.C.L. to seek monetary compensation as well
as current compensation and the claim for compassionate
appointment to the appellant's son has been rejected.
2. The husband of the appellant namely, Late
Bishwanath Mahto who was working as Category- I Mazdoor
in Kedla Open Cast Project under respondent- C.C.L., died
on 12.08.1996 in harness. At the time of death, the
appellant's son namely, Binod Mahto was aged about 13
years. After the death of her husband, Late Bishwanath
Mahto, the appellant filed an application seeking
compassionate appointment for her son on 08.10.1996, and
thereafter, the second application in complete format was
filed on 03.04.1997. Based on the said application, the son of
the appellant appeared for interview on 24.04.1998 in
regard to the compassionate appointment under Clause
9.3.2of the N.C.W.A.-V. The application for compassionate appointment was returned vide Annexure-2 dated 27.05.1998 directing the appellant to re-submit the application form after her son Binod Mahto, attains the age of 18 years.
3. Thereafter, the appellant re-submitted the application on 06.07.2000 seeking for compassionate appointment. The date of birth of the son of the appellant is 06.03.1982 and he attained majority on 06.03.2000. After 6 years, the said application was rejected by the respondents on 21.06.2006 stating that the application for employment was submitted by the appellant on 03.04.1997 after expiry of 6 months from the death of Late Bishwanath Matho, deceased- employee ( date of death- 12.08.1996). Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the appellant filed the writ petition being, W.P.(S) No. 7807 of 2006. The learned Single Judge finding that the appellant had also made an application for grant of monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A., directed the appellant to approach the respondent for grant of monetary compensation in terms of relevant provisions of N.C.W.A. and disposed of the writ petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Central Coalfields Limited.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the application for compassionate appointment, which was submitted within time, that is, on 08.10.1996 itself which was within six months from the date of death of Late Bishwanath Mahto. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider in proper perspective that the application dated 03.04.1997 was the application submitted in the prescribed format and in view of application submitted earlier, the delay cannot be attributed to the appellant. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the Annexure-2 at page- 16 and submits that when the earlier application was returned vide Annexure-2 dated 27.05.1998, the respondent did not indicate that the application was belated one. On the other hand, the respondent stated that the application has to be re-submitted to the office after the son of the appellant attains the age of 18 years. The learned counsel submitted that the import of Annexure -2 dated 27.05.1998, was not properly considered by the learned Single Judge.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent- C.C.L. has submitted that the compassionate appointment inter alia, is governed by a "settlement" known as National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) and no employment can be offered to the male dependant of the deceased worker who is 15 years and above in age but below 18 years of age. Such dependants will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Circular dated 12.12.1995, six months' limitation period is prescribed for submitting an application for appointment on compassionate grounds from the date of death of the employee concerned. In the case of present appellant, the application in complete format was filed only on 03.04.1997, which was beyond the period of limitation of six months and thus the applicant cannot sought for any direction for consideration of the case of the appellant's son for compassionate appointment.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. As pointed out earlier, after the death of Late Bishwanath Mahto on 12.08.1996, the first application seeking compassionate appointment was filed on 08.10.1996. The second application in complete format was filed on 03.04.1997. Though, the second application in complete format was beyond the period of six months stipulated for filing the application for compassionate appointment, the fact remains that the first application was filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment on 08.10.1996 within the period of two months after the death of Late Bishwanath Mahto. It is pertinent to note that based on the said application dated 03.04.1997, the appellant's son, Binod Mahto was also called for interview and in regard of employment under Clause 9.3.2 of the N.C.W.A-V, the application form (original and duplicate) with relevant papers were returned to be re-submitted to the office after the appellant's son attaining the age of 18 years. The said letter- Annexure-2 dated 27.05.1998 reads as under:
"Central Coalfields Limited Office of the CGM (H), Charhi Hazaribagh Area Ref. No...(H)/PS-3B/9.3.2/98/5316 Dtd. 27.05.1998 To, The Project Officer, Kedla CCP Dear Sir, Shri Binod Mahto S/o Late Biswa Nath Matho Ex-TR Cat.I of your project appeared before the Area Committee for interview on 24.4.98 in regard to employment under 9.3.2 of NCW-V. The Committee examined the case and found underage for employment & as such his case could not be considered.
Therefore, the application form original & duplicate with relevant papers are returned herewith to re-submit this office after attaining the age of 18 years. Recent photographs of the dependant duly attested with complete information and consent of adult dependant of the deceased should also be enclosed with the proposal.
The dependant may please be informed accordingly.
Yours faithfully, Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (H) Charhi"
9. By reading of Annexure-2, it is seen that the respondent nowhere pointed out that the application seeking compassionate appointment was beyond the period of six months, nor it is stated that the son of the appellant is below the age of 15 years and that his name will be kept in live roster. On the other hand, by the said Annexure-2 dated 27.05.1998 it is only stated that the application form is returned to be submitted to the office after Binod Mahto attains the age of 18 years. The tenor of Annexure-2 nowhere indicates that the application seeking compassionate appointment was belated one and the same cannot be considered in the absence of any such indication or direction. We are of the view that the respondents are bound to consider the case of the son of the appellant for compassionate appointment. As pointed out earlier in the Annexure-2, the respondents nowhere indicated that Binod Mahto is below 15 years and that his name cannot be kept on a live roster.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Limited and Others", reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 and contended that NCWA-V is a settlement within the meaning of Section 18 (3) of the I.D. Act and therefore, binding on both the parties and it would continue to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. The learned counsel for the respondent thus, contended that an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground must be submitted within the prescribed period. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on paragraph no. 10 of the said judgment which is extracted below,
10. "A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds, subject, of course, to compliance with the conditions precedent contained therein."
11. In "Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfield Limited and Others" (supra), though it has been held that, the right for appointment on compassionate grounds inmates from the settlement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that while prescribing a period of limitation, the respondent ought to have kept in view the spirit of the NCWA. It has further been held that the period of six months limitation prescribed in the Circular was not statutory and thus, not imperative in character. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under,
17. ".............The respondents did not perform their duties cast on them thereunder. It took a unilateral stand that an application had been filed in the year 1999 in the prescribed form. For complying with the provisions of a settlement which is binding on the parties, bona fide or otherwise of the respondent must be judged from the fact as to whether it had discharged his duties thereunder or not. In this case, not only it failed and/or neglected to do so, but as indicated hereinbefore it took a unholy stand that the elder brother of the appellant being employed, he was not entitled to appointment on the compassionate grounds. Thus, what really impelled the respondent in denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant is, therefore, open to guess. We expect a public sector undertaking which is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bona fide. In this case, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent is neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide."
12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the Annexure-2 dated 27.05.1998, we are of the view that the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment of her son has to be considered by the respondents. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of Binod Mahto, son of Late Bishwanath Mahto, r/o Village & P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) for compassionate appointment as per the scheme within three months.
(R. Banumathi, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J) R.K./Satyarthi