Jharkhand High Court
Manti Devi Aged About 52 Years vs Central Coal Field Limited (A ... on 13 September, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 11 of 2020
Manti Devi aged about 52 years, Wife of Late Krishna Ram, Ex-PR/TR,
EMP Code-055134, CMPF No. RMG/48-2604 Sounda „D‟ Colliery, Barka
Sayel Area, P.O.-Sounda, P.S.-Bhurkunda, Dist.-Ramgarh, Pin no. 829101.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. Central Coal Field Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India ltd.) having its
Registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Sadar, Dist. Ranchi, Pin
No.-834001.
2. Managing Director of C.C.L., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi,
P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi, Pin no. 834001.
3. Director (A) Central Coal Field Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O.-Ranchi,
P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi, Pin no. 834001.
4. General Manager, Barka Sayel Area, C.C.L., P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-
Hazaribagh, Pin No. 825311.
5. Project Officer, Urimari Colliery, Barka Sayel Area, C.C.L., P.O. &P.S. &
Dist.-Hazaribagh, Pin no. 825311.
6. General Manager (Samadhan), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
House, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi, Pin no. 834029.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate
Ms. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocate
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
06/Dated: 13th September, 2022
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. 6046 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been [2] rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner was not a regular employee rather a casual worker.
2. 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 Workers‟ 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 12.04.2010, 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. 6046 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.
[3]
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.
3. Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Mahua Palit and Leena Mukherjee, 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.
4. Per contra, Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent-
CCL has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefit, reason being that the deceased employee was not under the regular establishment. She submits by taking aid of the condition stipulated under NCWA that the appointment on compassionate ground or offer of appointment or the monetary benefit is to be paid only in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee who has died while serving in the substantive post. Herein, since the deceased employee was not under the regular establishment, therefore, there is no question of applicability of the condition stipulated in the NCWA.
[4]
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
The sole dispute revolves around that as to whether the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment of the CCL- management so as, the petitioner may be provided monetary benefit as per the condition contained in the NCWA.
6. This Court is of the view that in order to decide the appeal, it requires to answer as to whether the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment or was working in the capacity of casual worker. The same will be having bearing upon the issue of entitlement of the writ petitioner for getting the monetary benefit. If this Court will answer that the nature of appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment then certainly the writ petitioner will be entitled to get the monetary benefit under the NCWA but if this Court comes to the conclusion that the husband of the writ petitioner was working under the capacity of casual worker, in that circumstances, the writ petitioner will not be entitled for getting the monetary benefit.
7. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue, requires to refer the award passed in Reference Case No. 76 of 1985 which was preferred by the Union of Workmen of which the husband of the writ petitioner was also one of the members. The reference which was made for its adjudication before the adjudicator as quoted and referred above, was for seeking a direction for disbursement of wages directly by the management in favour of the members of the Union.
[5]
However, the workmen have taken the plea that they were engaged permanently and continuously for several years as Wagon Loaders and the management in order to deprive them of the benefits and facilities to which they are lawfully entitled, do not maintain the statutory records relating to their employment and not issued documents.
While on the other hand, the management had denied the relationship of employer and employee in between Sirka Colliery and the workmen under Reference.
The said issue had been answered by the Tribunal holding therein that the workmen as per the list mentioned in the award are the workmen of the Sirka Colliery working as Wagon Loaders, as such, management should pay the wages to them directly which they are entitled to. It had further been ordered that the management should verify the identification of the persons by obtaining the certificate of their proper identification by the Mukhiya and the B.D.O./Circle Officer of the area.
8. The question is that, if the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment, the salary is required to be paid by the CCL management in favour of that employee/workman and if the salary was not being paid for which the husband of the writ petitioner had raised the dispute through the Union for a direction upon the management to pay the wages directly, this itself suggests that the service of the husband of the writ petitioner was not under the regular establishment.
9. It also requires to be considered by this Court that what is the meaning of „wages‟ as per the certified standing order since the husband of the writ petitioner was being paid wages. For which, this Court has to consider the [6] certified standing order wherein as under 2.11 under the caption heading "Definition", „wage‟ means as defined under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Meaning thereby, if the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment there was no occasion to make order for payment of wages by the Tribunal which was required to be paid as per the applicable wages Act. This also clarifies the position about the nature of appointment.
Further, the certified standing order also contains a definition as under Clause 3.4 wherein the casual workmen has been defined which means a workmen who has been engaged for work which in intermittent or sporadic or of casual nature not extending beyond a maximum period of three months at a time provided that for employment of casual wagon loaders the time limit of three months shall not apply. For ready reference, the same are being reproduced as under:
"2.11 „Wages‟ means wages as defined in the payment of Wages Act, 1936. 3.4 A Casual workman means a workman who has been engaged for work which in intermittent or sporadic or of casual nature not extending beyond a maximum period of three months at a time provided that for employment of casual wagon loaders the time limit of three months shall not apply."
10. The aforesaid definition of casual workman also clarifies the position that the workman can be engaged for work which is intermittent or sporadic or of casual nature.
It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the husband of the writ petitioner was not being paid wages directly by the management, therefore, a reference was made which was answered in favour of the workmen which also suggest that the nature of the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner was of a casual workman. [7]
11. It requires to consider the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner that the benefit of pension was also extended in favour of the husband of the writ petitioner and such benefit cannot be granted in favour of a casual worker. But the same has been clarified by the management CCL by taking the plea that the benefit of pension was being paid under the provision of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 which came into force w.e.f. 31st March, 1998 wherein it has been stated that the benefit under the aforesaid scheme is to be paid to the employee who have completed 10 years of service. As per the aforesaid scheme, it has been provided that every employee in a coal mine to which this scheme apply other than an excluded employee shall be required to join the fund and become a member immediately after the end of the month following any month in which he completes the days of attendance.
12. So far as the contention of the payment of gratuity is concerned, plea has been taken that as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 contains a definition of „employees‟ which means any person (other than apprentice) who is employed for wages whether such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oil field, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applied. Herein, the deceased employee was also employed for the wages as would appear from the appointment letter dated 04.05.1992, hence, the deceased employee is entitled for payment of gratuity.
13. This Court, has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has found substance in the said fact since the Payment Of Gratuity Act speaks about payment of gratuity in favour of the employees as per the definition of [8] „employees‟ as referred above and if considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the gratuity was being paid in favour of the deceased employee, even then it cannot be construed that the husband of the writ petitioner was under the regular establishment.
Likewise, if the husband of the writ petitioner was being paid pension under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, that also does not confer any regular status to the husband of the writ petitioner. Moreso, the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner also discloses the nature of appointment as a piece rated worker (Wagon Loader).
The word „piece rate worker‟ itself clarifies the position taking the aid of the definition of casual worker under certified standing order as referred above.
14. This Court, therefore, considering the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the husband of the writ petitioner was not under the regular establishment of the CCL management, as such, there is no question of applicability of the condition as stipulated in the NCWA which contains a condition about the monetary benefit which is to be paid in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee, if the deceased employee is under the regular establishment.
15. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and dealing with the documents as has been discussed hereinabove, if has refused to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner, according to our considered view, it cannot be said to suffer from error.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. [9]
17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh /N.A.F.R.