Dismissed

Sohwa Devi v. Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2016WPC/88/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought monetary compensation from Coal India for the delay in appointing her son after her husband's employment termination due to disability. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that Clause 9.4.0 governs dependent employment without compensation provisions, and Clause 9.5.0 is inapplicable as she sought employment, not compensation.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed the prayer for monetary compensation as it is not provided under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA.

Sohwa Devi Vs Central Coalfield Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 88 of 2016

¶2

Sohwa Devi wife of late Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto resident of villagePabra, P.S.- Katkamsandi, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶3

…......... Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Central Coalfield Ltd. through the Chairman cum-Managing Director, at Darbhanga House, P.O. +P.S.+District-Ranchi.

¶6

The Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Ltd., at Darbhanga House, P.O. +P.S.+District-Ranchi

¶7

The Chief General Manager at Kuju Area of CCL, P.O.+ P.S.+Kuju, District- Hazaribagh.

¶8

The Project Officer, Aarra Colliery, Kuju Area, P.O. and P.S.- Kuju, Deptt. Of CCL, District- Hazaribagh. ... ... ... ...Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN,

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. For the C.C.L : Mr. D.K. Chakrobarty, Advocate

¶11

2/13.06.2016: Heard the parties.

¶12

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for payment of monetary compensation with statutory interest from the period 14.8.1997 to 6.6.2011 on the ground that her husband became medically unfit and his son was given employment only on 7.6.2011 in terms of Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (For short NCWA). The petitioner claims that from the date where her husband was declared to be medically unfit till her son was given employment, she is entitled to get monetary compensation in terms of NCWA.

¶13

The husband of the petitioner namely, Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited as a mason in Category-IV at Aara Colliery. He was appointed on 8.6.1973. The husband of the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of which, his left hand was amputated. The husband of the petitioner was declared unfit and ultimately he was terminated by letter dated 13.8.1997 by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner applied for appointment in terms of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA and thereafter considering the case of her son, he was appointed.

¶14

The counsel for the petitioner prays for monetary compensation on the ground that the son of the petitioner had applied for appointment bay back in the year 1997 and the respondent authorities settled the matter and ultimately as per the petitioner her son was appointed on 7.6.2011. Thus she claims monetary compensation for the

¶15

intervening period.

¶16

From the pleadings of the petitioner it is undisputed that her husband Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto was an employee of CCL. He became medically unfit as a result of which, his services were terminated. It is further evident that in place of her husband, her son has been appointed in CCL though after a long delay.

¶17

Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA deals with the employment to one dependent of a worker, who is permanently disabled, in his place. Subclause of the said Clause provides that on disablement of a worker from any injury or disease, which is permanent in nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. After such certification, a dependent of the said disabled employee, who is depending on the earning of the employee will be considered for appointment.

¶18

In the instant case, the son of Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto was considered in terms of Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA and ultimately he was appointed in place of his father. The petitioner has submitted that since he has been appointed after 14 years from the date of his application, she should be given “monetary compensation”.

¶19

There is no provision in Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA or in its any of the sub-clauses of 9.4.0 for providing monetary compensation when a worker becomes disabled and in his/her place his/her dependent has been appointed.

¶20

The provision of monetary compensation is embodied in Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA and its sub-clauses. As per Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA and its sub-clauses, if a person dies in harness/or in case of permanent disablement, the dependent being a female has option to get monetary compensation or employment. Clause 9.5.0(ii) of the NCWA provides for payment of monetary compensation to the female dependent only in case of death or total permanent disablement. It provides that if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment. Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA is not applicable in this case as employment was sought for by the son.

¶21

Thus in this case, it is clear that the wife of the workman has opted for employment on behalf of her son, which was provided by CCL under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA. Clause 9.4.0 does not whisper about any

¶22

payment of monetary compensation. This prayer cannot be granted because of the reason that the son of the petitioner has already been employed and appointed in terms of Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA. There is no provision in terms of Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA or its sub-clauses to provide any monetary compensation. Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA is not applicable in facts of this case as because the petitioner herself has not opted for employment. If the petitioner would have opted for employment of herself, the matter would have been different. Since the petitioner has opted for appointment of her son, clause 9.5.0(ii) of NCWA will not be applicable as because clause 9.5.0(ii)is applicable for “female dependent” who opts for monetary compensation or for employment. Since the petitioner has opted employment for her son, clause 9.4.0 will be applicable.

¶23

Since the son of the petitioner has already been employed and clause 9.5.0(ii) of NCWA is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is governed under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA, I find no merit in this application, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶24

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶25

Anu/-

Sohwa Devi v. Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohwa Devi v. Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantu Saw Alias Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nitesh Laha Alias Buku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Badsah Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Alexia Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pinki Sardar Vs Human Resources Department

Madan Singh Munda Vs Human Resources Department