Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited Through ... vs Smt. Parden Oraon on 28 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1316
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.718 of 2018
With
I.A. No.10835 of 2018
1. Central Coalfields Limited through Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. - Ranchi Sadar,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. - Ranchi Sadar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. General Manager, Argeda Area, Sirka, Hazaribagh, Post Office &
P.S.-Argeda, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
4. Project Officer, Gidi Washery, Post office & P.S.-Gidi, District-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
. ...Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Smt. Parden Oraon, wife of Late Binod Oraon @ Vinod Oraon, Ex-
Operator, Helper Cat - II, Gidi Washery, Post Office & P.S.-Gidi A,
District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellants-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
04/Dated 28th January, 2020 I.A. No.10835 of 2018:-
1. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 67 days in preferring the instant appeal.[2]
2. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.
L.P.A. No.718 of 2018:-
4. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5651 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the decision of the respondent authorities dated 03.08.2016, by which the claim for compassionate appointment to the writ-petitioner's son was declined, has been held to be illegal with a direction upon the respondent No.4 to assess the suitability of the writ-petitioner's son within six weeks. The respondent No.4 has further been directed to forward necessary papers for payment of the contributory provident fund contributions to the writ-petitioner within six weeks. Gratuity payable to the ex-employee for the service rendered by him shall also be paid to the petitioner within the same period.
5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading which requires to be enumerated for adjudication of the lis are :
The husband of the writ-petitioner, namely, late Binod Oraon @ Vinod Oraon was a regular employee of the Central Coalfields Limited and was posted as Operator, Helper Category-II, Gidi Washery. He was found missing on and from 03.10.2002. [3]
The writ-petitioner has made due information to the concerned police station on 06.11.2002 and a copy of the same was sent to the Regional Officer, Gidi Washery, CCL.
The authorities of the appellant-CCL when found that the husband of the writ-petitioner is not reporting on duty, had issued a charge-sheet dated 08.07.2003 stating therein that her husband was absenting from duty continuously without permission and without any satisfactory cause for over 10 days since 01.10.2002 and accordingly, he was directed to resume duty within 07 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
The writ-petitioner, who happens to be an employee of the appellant-CCL, had submitted reply to the show cause on 14.07.2003 denying the charge of unauthorized absence stating therein that she had already lodged an FIR and SANHA, bearing No.531/2002 dated 28.11.2002 and a copy of the same has been sent to the Project Officer, and accordingly, requested to accept her explanation and exonerate her husband from the alleged charges.
The respondent authorities, by order dated 24.09.2003 has appointed one Shri Gyan Bhardan, SE (C) of Gidi Washery, CCL as an Enquiry Officer.
It is further the case of the writ-petitioner that in continuation to the reply already submitted and in pursuance to the order dated 24.09.2003 she filed a detailed reply reiterating the fact about missing of her husband with a request to exonerate her husband from the charges but the charge of unauthorized absence has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer by holding an [4] enquiry, in consequence thereof, the husband of the writ- petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 21.09.2004 as also the name of her husband was deleted from the roll of the company.
The writ-petitioner has filed a title suit being Title Suit No.124 of 2009 before the Court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh for a decree declaring that her husband, namely, late Binod Oraon is presumed to be dead on account of having not been seen and heard for 07 years. The said suit was decreed on 13.07.2012 wherein the decree of civil death has been declared regarding death of Binod Oraon, the husband of the writ-petitioner, from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 23.12.2009 on account of being not seen or heard continuously for more than seven years.
Thereafter, the writ-petitioner filed a representation for employment of her son in view of the provision contained under para 9.3.0 but vide office order dated 02.11.2013 issued under the signature of Project Officer, the writ-petitioner was informed that her husband had already been dismissed before the institution of the suit and there is no such order setting aside the termination order by any court of competent jurisdiction and therefore the employment to her son on compassionate ground cannot be considered.
The writ-petitioner, in consequence of the said decision, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.330 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2015 by which the order of termination of the petitioner's husband dated 20.09.2004 as also the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment was [5] quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to take decision on the claim of compassionate appointment of the son of the writ-petitioner.
The respondent authorities have taken decision vide order dated 03.08.2016 by which the claim of the writ-petitioner has been rejected on the plea that according to policy decision of the Director (P) meet dated 19.10.2013, no employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of the employee went on missing/deemed death shall be considered.
The writ-petitioner has filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid order being W.P.(S) No.5651 of 2016 which was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2018, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid order merely relying upon the decision taken at the level of Director Personnel held on 19.10.2013 (Annexure-3) to the paperbook wherein it has been decided not to provide employment to the dependant in a case of civil death and as such, according to the learned counsel since the decision has already been taken not to provide compassionate appointment in a case of civil death, the learned Single Judge, without considering the said decision in right perspective, has passed order, hence, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
The second ground has been agitated about the delay which according to the learned counsel has not properly been [6] considered as because when the object and intent of appointment on compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the dependents of the deceased employee for their survival and when the dependant have already survived fairly for a long period, there is no justification for getting appointment on compassionate appointment.
The third ground has been agitated that the son of the writ-petitioner cannot be said to be the dependant since the writ- petitioner herself is an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited and therefore, there is no requirement to provide compassionate appointment.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone across the materials available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order wherein the following facts are in admission.
The husband of the writ-petitioner, namely, late Binod Oraon, was a regular employee of the Central Coalfields Limited, was found missing on and from 03.10.2002. The police has been informed about the missing of her husband on 06.11.2002 which was recorded as SANHA entry bearing No.531/2002 dated 28.11.2002. The writ-petitioner has given due information to the Project Officer, Gidi Washery, CCL on 05.12.2002 along with the copy of the FIR. A charge-sheet was issued against the husband of the writ-petitioner on 08.07.2003 asking the writ-petitioner to explain as to why her husband be not dispensed with the service for unauthorized absence for more than 10 days since 01.10.2002 with a direction for resuming duty within 07 days from the date of [7] receipt of the letter. The writ-petitioner has denied the aforesaid allegation by making a reply on 14.07.2003 enclosing therein the copy of the SANHA No.531/2002 dated 28.11.2002 making a prayer therein for acceptance of the explanation and to exonerate her husband from the alleged charges.
The respondents have appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated 24.09.2003 asking the writ-petitioner to submit reply put appearance before the enquiry officer to deny the charges, in pursuance thereto, reply was filed before the enquiry officer on 24.09.2003 denying the allegation of unauthorized absence along with the copy of the SANHA entry with a request to exonerate her husband from the charges but the enquiry officer has found the charges proved about unauthorized absence and in consequence thereof, her husband was terminated from the service of CCL with effect from 21.09.2004 by deleting his name from the roll of the company.
The writ-petitioner has filed a title suit bearing No.124 of 2009 before the Court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh for a decree declaring her husband, namely, Binod Oraon, presumed to be dead on account of having not seen or heard for 07 years. The suit was decreed on 13.07.2002 wherein the decree of civil death has been declared regarding death of Binod Oraon, husband of the writ-petitioner, from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 23.12.2009 on account of not being seen or heard continuously for more than 07 years. The writ-petitioner filed a representation for employment of her son in view of the provision contained under para 9.3.0 which [8] was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2013 on the ground of dismissal of her husband. The writ-petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.11.2013 by filing a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.330 of 2012 which was allowed and the order of termination of husband of the writ-petitioner dated 20.09.2004 as also the rejection of claim of compassionate appointment was quashed with a direction upon the respondents to take decision on the claim of the son of the writ- petitioner for compassionate appointment but was again rejected vide order dated 03.08.2016 which was assailed before this Court by virtue of W.P.(S) No.5651 of 2016 which has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.08.2016 with a direction to consider the case of the son of the writ-petitioner for compassionate appointment with a further direction for payment of post terminal benefits.
8. Before proceeding to decide the issue, it requires to refer an order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).25656-25657 of 2017 upon which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants by raising the submission that however the Hon'ble Apex Court in the similar circumstances has dismissed the Special Leave petitions but the question of law has been kept open, therefore, the matter requires to be decided.
This Court, in order to decide the issue in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is now proceeding to decide the issue.
[9]
9. The first ground of assailing the impugned order is the decision taken by the Director Personnel in the meeting held on 19.10.2013 at Jaipur (Annexure-3 to the paperbook). It is evident from the aforesaid decision which contains a decision as to whether in a case of civil death, employment to the dependents is to be considered or not, the decision was taken not to consider such cases for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the admitted position that appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided under a bilateral agreement known as National Coal Wage Agreement.
10. This Court has occasioned to go through the National Coal Wage Agreement which is applicable in the present case wherefrom it transpires that the agreement has been arrived at in between the employer of the Union representing the workmen wherein several decisions have been taken, one of the decision pertains to appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of the employee in service, the aforesaid provision is under 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 which are relevant to be considered in the present context.
11. The aforesaid provision as contained under 9.3.2 & 9.5.0 are being referred herein under :
"9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.
9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed [10] daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.
9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.
9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment.
In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.
(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he 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. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as [11] per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000.
(iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.
(v) The exiting rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised."
It is evident from the National Coal Wage Agreement which contains a provision to keep the dependant of the deceased employee in live roster that also differentiate the impact of the agreement vis-a-viz the scheme issued by the State for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground on different parameters. It further suggests that if the question of delay, as has been agitated by the learned counsel, would be taken into consideration the same would be in conflict with the provision to keep the dependant of the deceased employee in live roster as admittedly the dependant if is of the age of 12 years and above in age, subsequently it was enhanced to the age of 15 years, will be kept on a live roster till he attains the age of 18 years and as such, the question of delay will not be attracted herein since in the agreement itself, the relaxation of six years or subsequently three years have been provided.
12. It transpires from the National Coal Wage Agreement that the agreement has been arrived at not in course of conciliation, therefore, it is under the provision of Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947). Before proceeding further, it requires to refer the provision of Section 18 of [12] the Act, 1947 for proper adjudication of the fact and the issue involved in this case, which reads hereunder as:
"18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.-[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
(2) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.] [(3)] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act [or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of section 10-A] or [an award [of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on--
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, [arbitrator,] [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part."
13. According to us, since the National Coal Wage Agreement is a bilateral contract arrived at other than in course of conciliation, [13] therefore, it will be under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, 1947, hence, it has got statutory force, as such, this Court is of the view that the moment National Coal Wage Agreement has been arrived at by way of bilateral contract in pursuance to the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, 1947 that would be binding upon the parties and the parties herein are the employer and the Union representing the workmen. Once it has got binding effect, it is incumbent upon both the parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement without any deviation from any of the conditions or the provision underlying therein.
National Coal Wage Agreement is having statutory force which would also appear from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.,(2007) 8 SCC 549.
14. It is evident from the National Coal Wage Agreement wherein the provision has been made to appoint the dependants of the deceased employee on compassionate ground as referred hereinabove which contains a provision to provide such appointment in case of death without making any distinction in the nature of death either it is natural or civil death and once there is a death, the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement will ipso facto be applicable.
15. The argument has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants about the policy decision taken for not considering the case of appointment on compassionate ground in a case of dependant whose bread earner has been declared to be dead by virtue of the provision of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act [14] and as such, there is no question of consideration of case of the son of the writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
16. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument has gone across the minutes of meeting wherefrom it is evident that the meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the General Manager (MP & IR), CIL in presence of all the Directors. It further appears from the said meeting that there is no requirement of any representation of the Union representing the workmen. Now the question arises herein that whether in view of the decision taken in the meeting under the Chairmanship of the General Manager in presence of Directors, any addition or alteration can be made in the National Coal Wage Agreement, which is a bilateral agreement in between the employer and the Union representing the workmen.
17. It is the settled position of law that the statutory provision or a policy decision having its statutory force can be supplemented by any further decision but the same may not be inconsistent to the decision contained in the original instrument and not to supplant the said decision, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Sivaguru vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 335 wherein the issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court as to whether a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be supplemented through the executive instruction wherein it has been held that the executive instruction cannot supplant the rules rather it can only supplement the rules, reference of [15] paragraph-49 is required to be made herein, which reads hereunder as:
"49. The qualifications prescribed under the aforesaid Rules for the basic post of Health Inspector Grade II, were: (a) SSLC Pass Certificate; (b) One year long term Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate; or (c) Sanitary Course Certificate with Short Term Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate. The aforesaid provision contained in the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be amended by executive instructions. We have no hesitation in accepting the first submission of Mr. Rao that the executive instructions can not supplant the statutory rules, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Sant Ram Sharma. The aforesaid ratio has been reiterated by this Court on numerous occasions. It is not necessary to make a reference to any of the subsequent decisions as it would be a mere repetition of the accepted ratio, noticed above. We are, however, of the opinion that the ratio of law laid down in Sant Ram Sharma case would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 644, wherein at paragraph 28 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that -
28. ..... It is settled proposition of law that the executive orders cannot supplant the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India........."
18. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid proposition of law and comparing with the present factual scenario, is of the view that herein the National Coal Wage Agreement is a bilateral agreement having been arrived in pursuance to the provision of Section 18(1) [16] of the Act, 1947, therefore, it has got statutory fervour and once it has got statutory fervour the same can only be altered or modified through the same process and not by a policy decision as has been done by way of a decision as contained under Annexure-3, the case of such candidates who are to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in a case of civil death.
19. The National Coal Wage Agreement is very much explicit by making a provision for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in a case of death without making any distinction with respect to the nature of death either it is civil death or natural death but the same has been modified and altered by making a clarification by virtue of a decision taken under the Chairmanship of General Manager in presence of the Directors without any representation of the Union representing the workmen and as such, the said policy decision will have to be treated as inconsistent to the National Coal Wage Agreement pertaining to the provision of appointment on compassionate ground and once it is inconsistent it cannot form part of the National Coal Wage Agreement, therefore this Court is of the view that the ground of rejection of the case of the writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of decision of the General Manager in presence of the Directors for not considering the said case of appointment on compassionate ground whose bread earner is found to be dead due to declaration by the competent court of the civil jurisdiction as under the provision of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. [17]
20. The second ground has been agitated about the delay and as such argument has been agitated in the context of the general principle for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. It is not in dispute that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and the same is to be considered and provided on the basis of the scheme if floated by the employer. The object is to provide immediate relief to the dependant of the deceased employee, therefore, delay has got its importance.
21. It also requires to refer herein that once the National Coal Wage Agreement has been held to be having its statutory force as per the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, 1947, it would not be proper to compare the scheme contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement pertaining to appointment on compassionate ground with the provision made by the other establishment by way of a scheme. It is for the reason that the scheme is always by virtue of policy decision and wherein the question of delay is required to be considered to achieve the object and intent to provide appointment on compassionate ground but the National Coal Wage Agreement has been arrived, in course other than conciliation, as per the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, 1947 and once the agreement is having its statutory fervour, it is having the binding effect upon the parties and right will said to be accrued who are signatories to the agreement, therefore, the question of delay applicable in a case of general scheme containing provision for appointment on compassionate ground will not be applicable in a case for appointment to be considered in pursuance to the National Coal [18] Wage Agreement subject to the period of limitation to submit its application, in view thereof, the submission which has been made that there is considerable delay from the date of death, will not be applicable herein.
This will also not be applicable due to the reason that admittedly the husband of the writ-petitioner was found missing on and from 03.10.2002. The suit has been filed immediately after 07 years i.e., in the year 2009 being Title Suit No.124 of 2009 and decree has been passed on 13.07.2012 in the aforesaid title suit giving a declaration about civil death with respect to the husband of the writ-petitioner but prior to the aforesaid fact, the husband of the writ-petitioner was terminated from service on 20.09.2004, however, the same has been quashed by an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.330 of 2014 which was disposed of on 03.08.2015 by directing the authorities to consider the case of the dependant of the husband of the writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and in pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the fresh decision was taken on 03.08.2016 and hence, in the facts and circumstances it cannot be said to be delay on the part of the writ-petitioner rather it is delay not to be attributable to the writ- petitioner if counted from the date of missing i.e., on or after 03.10.2002 immediately after 07 years, it is the statutory period to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent court to get declaration of civil death by filing a suit immediately after the lapse of the said statutory period i.e., in the year 2009 and decree was passed on 13.07.2012 and thereafter the application has been filed for [19] consideration of appointment on compassionate ground on 02.11.2013 i.e,. within the period of 18 months, however, the same was rejected which was assailed before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.330 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2015 and in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court in the said writ petition, again the claim was rejected vide order dated 03.08.2016 which was the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5651 of 2016 and therefore, the delay, if any, is not attributable to the writ petitioner rather it is the delay due to the statutory period, as provided under the statute, in getting declaration about civil death as also the pending litigation.
In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion made with respect to the delay part, this Court is of the view that the argument on this ground is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore, the same is having no force and hence, rejected.
22. The third argument as agitated about the reason for non- consideration is that the writ-petitioner herself is an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited. This reason can also not be a reason for non-consideration in view of the fact that the National Coal Wage Agreement does not stipulate reason for denying the claim in a case when the mother is in service and in case of death of the employee father, the dependants will not be considered as has been observed hereinabove that no word can be inserted if not provided in the National Coal Wage Agreement and if allowed to be considered as per the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the [20] appellant it will be nothing but inserting a condition in the National Coal Wage Agreement which according to us, is not permissible.
In view of such reason, this ground is also having no force, accordingly, rejected.
23. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and after going across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge as impugned in this appeal, cannot said to be faulted with.
24. In view thereof, the appeal is devoid of merit, accordingly, stands dismissed.
25. Pending interlocutory applications also stands dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh A.F.R.