The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against an order where the Single Judge allowed a dependent employment claim under the National Coal Wage Agreement. The Court held that the matter was squarely covered by a binding precedent from its own decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 89 of 2016
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Order on Board
Per Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
11.10.2023
1. The appellant/petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1445 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent’s father Shri Chandra Prakash Panigrahi while working as SECL employee, died in harness on 20.10.2007. The
2
petitioner being son and dependent of Late Chandra Prakash Panigrahi, made an application for dependent employment in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). His application for dependent employment has been rejected by the respondent SECL by order dated 03.3.2014 holding that the petitioner’s mother is already in employment and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for dependent employment, against which the petitioner has filed writ petition questioning the order passed by the SECL holding that the NCWA is a settlement and it does not bar dependent employment merely on the ground that some other member of the family is in employment.
3 . It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the provision of ‘dependent employment’ as contained in Chapter-IX of the National Coal Wage Agreement in its substance and nature is different than the ‘compassionate appointment’ as the term is understood in service law. The provision relating to dependent employment contained in NCWA is an agreement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Dispute Act, and therefore, by virtue of Section 18(b) of the Act, it is not binding on the parties of settlement and it can go against the very idea and philosophy of ‘compassionate appointment ‘ that is to give an immediate financial assistance to the family of deceased employee
3
which has been confronted with penury and precarious condition due to death of the sole bread winner of the family. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has committed error by not considering the legality and binding effect of the resolution passed on the 80th meeting of the Director(Personnel) of Coal India Ltd. held on 16.4.2004, wherein it promotes the object of dependent employment by offering an employment only to the member of family which is in dire need of such assistance from the employer due to death of the sole bread earner of the family but is also in conformity with the object and philosophy of compassionate appointment as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen numbers of judgments. He would next submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the mother of the respondent/petitioner was also in employment at the time of death of the deceased employee and had sufficient means to meet out the expenses. He would further submit that it is settled law that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this,
4
however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment. He would further submit that an appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of right by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be, therefore, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1445/2014 and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner while supporting the impugned order would submit that as per the clause 9.3.0. of the NCWA, the respondent/ petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and nothing debar the respondent/petitioner to get the compassionate appointment on the ground that mother of the respondent/petitioner is in employment. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order which does not require any interference, hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
5
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The issue came up for consideration in the writ petition, against which instant writ appeal has been filed, has already been dealt by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.832/2012 (Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) vide order dated 30.11.2015, which has been referred in the impugned order and relevant para of the said order reads as under :-
“7. Aforesaid question came to be considered by this Court in WP() No.832/2012 (Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) decided on 30.11.2015 and this Court has answered in paragraphs 27 & 28 of its judgment as under:-
"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
6
taken only to deny the claim of the petitioner and as such, denial on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for dependent employment in terms of Section 9.3.3. of the NCWA is perse illegal and arbitrary.
7
7. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is worthy to note here that against order dated 30.11.2015 passed in WPS No.832/2012 (Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others), an appeal bearing Writ Appeal No.20/2016 has been preferred by the appellants/ respondents and the same is dismissed today by this Court after considering all the aspects of the matter.
8 . In the instant appeal also, we do not find any merit, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
9. The writ appeal, is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/Sd/( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) ( Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice
Bini
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere when the Single Judge's decision in the current appeal is squarely covered by a binding precedent.
Whether the grounds relied upon for the Single Judge's decision are sufficient to merit interference in the current appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields LimitedFollowed¶6
Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Mohan MahtoReferred¶33
Mohan Mahto
South Eastern Coalfield Ltd.
Gulshan Prakash S/o Late Chandra Prakash Panigrahi
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
