Dismissed

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Avinash Saloman

Chhattisgarh HC11 Oct 2023WA/20/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed a dependent family member of a deceased SECL employee to the claim compassionate employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement, holding the impugned order legally sound.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge allowing the petitioner dependent employment stands.

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 20 of 2016

¶5

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶6

Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh

¶7

Senior Personnel Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, Kapildhara Colliery, P.O. Bijuri, District Anuppur M.P.

¶8

Superintendent Mines/ Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kapildhar U.G. Project, Hasdeo Area, District Anuppar M.P.

¶9

---- Appellants/Respondents

¶10

Versus

¶11

Avinash Saloman S/o Late Ranjan Saloman, Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Badan Singh Mohalla, Mission Road, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondent/Petitioner

¶13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Order on Board

¶14

Per Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶15

11.10.2023

¶16

1. The appellants/respondents seeks to challenge the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.832 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed by directing the appellants/SECL authorities to consider the writ petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in NCWA, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father, on its own merit, within 45 days from the date of order.

¶17

¶18

2. Facts of the case, in brief, as reflected from order dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Single Judge, is that the petitioner’s father Shri Ranjan Saloman was employed as Electrician in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kapildhara Colliery and he died in harness on 24.6.2007 leaving behind his widow and son (petitioner herein). The petitioner's mother namely Smt.Pratima Saloman filed an application on 16.8.2007 for grant of monthly monetary compensation to her till the petitioner attains the age of majority and to allow the petitioner to continue in live roster for future employment as per provision contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (hereinafter referred to as “NCWA”). The petitioner's mother application was rejected by the respondent/SECL by an order dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P/5) stating inter-alia that she is in the government job, therefore, neither she is entitled for monthly monetary compensation nor her son can be employed on any post in the SECL. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner made an application for appointment on 30.11.2011 stating inter-alia that he is dependent of deceased Ranjan Saloman, therefore, he is entitled for appointment as per clause 9.3.0 provided in the NCWA effective from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2011, which provides provisions for employment and payment of monthly monetary compensation to the dependents. The said application remained pending and no final decision was taken leading to filing of this writ petition

¶19

¶20

stating inter-alia that as per clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, the petitioner being dependent of the deceased, is entitled for “dependent employment” within the meaning of the NCWA and non-grant of such an employment as per the NCWA is unsustainable and a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent-SECL to consider and grant the appointment as per provision contained in NCWA.

¶21

3 . After hearing learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned Amicus Curiae, the learned Single Judge granted relief to the respondent/writ petitioner observing therein that the respondent/SECL has failed to act fairly, reasonably and bonafidely towards the dependent of the deceased, who is struggling to meet both ends since 2007 and thereby directed the respondent/SECL and its authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in NCWA, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father, on its own merit, within 45 days from the date of order.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents would submit that the compassionate appointment was for a particular purpose, so that family members of the deceased employee should not face hardness arising out of the death of the deceased employee and therefore, the provisions of compassionate appointment especially constitute. He would further submit that at the time of death of respondent’s father,

¶23

¶24

the respondent was not solely depend upon the deceased employee as his mother is also working with the State Government as Nurse as such the respondent and his family was not in penury, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of social security scheme as provided in the NCWA. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider this aspect, therefore order impugned may be dismissed.

¶25

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment would submit that clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA provides for employment to the dependents and NCWA is the “settlement” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) and settlement is binding to the respondent/SECL by virtue of Section 18 (3) of the ID Act and unless the settlement is altered/modified and substituted by another agreement, the settlement is binding to both the parties and would remain in force. The petitioner has a right to obtain dependent employment on such a ground emerging from the settlement as defined in Section 2(p) of the ID Act .

¶26

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that NCWA is the “settlement” defined under Section 2(p) of the ID Act and such settlement is binding to employer and employee till its modification/alteration/substitution by another settlement

¶28

¶29

and since the settlement has not been substituted/altered, it is binding to the parties and would remain in force. Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, provides employment to dependents on the death of an employee of the SECL under the heading Social Security scheme and in the present case, the respondent has submitted service excerpts of his deceased father in which the respondent has been shown to be dependent on the deceased, therefore, the respondent has right to raise his claim.

¶30

8. Learned Single Bench after considering the relevant facts put forth by both the parties and the material available on record has observed in para 27 to 32 as under:-

¶31

“27. The respondent/SECL is subsidiary company of the Coal India, a public sector undertaking and undoubtedly, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has also been conferred with the status of “Miniratna Company” by the Government of India and therefore, it is obliged to act fairly, reasonably and bonafidely and should take a plea, which is legally available to them. The plea taken in this writ petition is an unholy plea as observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohan Mahto (supra), but such a plea has been taken only to deny the claim the claim of the petitioner and as such, denial on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for dependant employment in terms of Section 9.3.3 of the NCWA is per-se illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, it is held that action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for dependent employment provided under Section 9.3.0 of the NCWA, which is binding settlement and which nowhere excludes the dependent employment on the ground of one of the family member dependent employee on employment is ex-facie illegal and plainly arbitrary.

¶34

At this stage, it is apposite to notice the authoritative decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt.Sushma Gosian and others v. Union of India and others 12 , in which Their Lordships have clearly held that all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment taking into consideration the object of such appointment and further held that it is improper to keep such case pending for years. The relevant paragraph of the report states as under:-

¶35

“9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the 12 (1989) 4 SCC 46825 family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is

¶36

¶37

no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.

¶38

The appellants are entitled to their costs which we quantify at Rs 15,000/- and it shall also be paid within three weeks.”

¶39

The petitioner's father died on 24.6.2007 and his case was not considered appropriately and properly by the respondents till this date for dependent employment despite express provision in NCWA in this regard and plea taken is found to be unsustainable. The respondent/SECL has failed to act fairly, reasonably and bonafidely towards the dependent of the deceased, who is struggling to meet both ends since 2007. Thus, while expressing disapproval of the way in which the SECL Authorities have dealt with the claim of the petitioner relating to dependent employment and took five years time in taking a final decision, it would be appropriate to impose cost quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/SECL, which will be paid to the petitioner within four weeks.

¶40

As a fallout and in consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent/SECL and its authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in NCWA, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father, on its own merit, within forty-five days from today.

¶41

¶42

32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.”

¶43

9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in right perspective considering the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA, which is a binding settlement and which nowhere excludes the dependent employment on the ground of one of the family members of dependent employee on employment is ex-facie illegal and plainly arbitrary. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶44

10. The writ appeal, is accordingly, dismissed.

¶45

Sd/Sd/-

¶46

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) ( Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶47

Bini

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Avinash Saloman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Avinash Saloman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul @ Roshanlal Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Vs Gulshan Prakash

Vishwanath Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

General Secretary Vs Employer