Allowed

Employers in Relation to the Management of Ramkanali Colliery v. Their Workman Being Represented by Sri N G Arun

Jharkhand HC26 Aug 2019WPC/1951/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition to set aside a tribunal award granting compassionate appointment. It held that appointment is unavailable when the employee died after dismissal (not in harness) and the dismissal was uncontested, rendering the claim vague.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 19.01.2010 is set aside; the writ petition is allowed.

Employers in Relation to the Management of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

W.P. (L) No.1951 of 2010

¶2

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶3

Employers in relation to the Management of Ramkanali Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, PO, PS Katras, District-Dhanbad through Sri Arun Kumar Singh, General Manager, Katras Area No.IV, M/s BCCL, at present residing at G.M.Bunglow, Sijua More, PO Sijua, PS Katras, District-Dhanbad ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Their Workman being represented by Sri N.G.Arun, Organizing Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Michael John Smriti Bhawan, Rajendra Path, PO, PS and District- Dhanbad

¶6

..… Respondent

¶7

----- For the Petitioner :Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent :Mr. S.K.Verma, Adv. -----

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked against the Award dated 19.01.2010 passed in Reference Case No.233/2000 by CGIT-I, Dhanbad whereby reference has been answered in favour of the claimant ordering compassionate appointment.

¶12

From pleading and argument, it appears that the concerned workman, namely, Late Madhusudan Lal Begi has worked on the post of Sweeper at Ramkanali Colliery, Dhanbad since 04.05.1981. He started absenting from 15.03.1993 and for such absentism, he has been charged. After holding departmental enquiry, he has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.01.1994. It appears that the concerned workman has not raised any dispute and subsequently he died on 17.12.1995. After death of Late Madhusudan Lal Begi, an industrial dispute has been raised by the Union in the year 2000, which has been referred as Reference No.233/2000.

¶13

The terms of reference is as follows:

¶14

“Whether the action of the management of Ramkanali Colliery, Dhanbad of M/s BCCL Ltd. in dismissing Shri Madhusudan Lal Begi from the service of the company w.e.f. 17.1.94 and on this ground after his death not providing benefit of employment scheme is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman or his dependent entitled?”

¶15

Reference has been answered in favour of the claimant in

¶16

following terms.

¶17

“Accordingly, I render the following award- The Action of the management of Ramkanali Colliery, Dhanbad of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in dismissing Shri Madhusudan Lal Begi from the service of the company with effect from 27.1.94 and on this ground after his death not providing benefit of employment scheme is not proper, legal and justified. Hence, the management is directed to provide employment to the dependent of the concerned workman under the provisions of NCWA within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.”

¶18

From pleading and argument, it appears that objection has been raised by the petitioner-employer that identity of the dependent has not been disclosed and this makes the claim itself vague. Further the order of dismissal has not been questioned. Compassionate appointment has to be provided, if the concerned employee died in harness. Die in harness means the relationship of employer and employee was alive i.e. the employee has died during the service period. Once there was an order of dismissal then the relationship of employer and employee ceased w.e.f. 27.01.1994 and as such, death of the deceased employee dated 17.05.1995 was not in harness and as such dependent was not entitled for any compassionate appointment.

¶19

Counsel for the Union has defended the award by asserting that the order of dismissal was wholly unjustified as the procedure initiated was the proceeding for minor punishment and further it was in complete negation of the principle of natural justice. Once dismissal of the deceased employee was wholly unjustified, dependent becomes entitled for compassionate appointment as per the NCWA.

¶20

It is trite that any compassionate appointment is exception to the general rule. Compassionate appointment has to be provided to the dependent, if the concerned employee dies in harness. Harness means the relationship of employer and employee was subsisting meaning thereby, the employee has died in his service life and not after the expiry of the service period or not after termination of service. It is also settled law that Tribunal get jurisdiction as per the terms of reference. Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference.

¶21

In the present case, the order of dismissal has not been challenged. Further in the case of challenge to the order of dismissal, fairness of the domestic enquiry has to be ascertained as

¶22

a preliminary issue. If the domestic enquiry is not fair or against the principle of natural justice or if there is no procedure followed, then Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will come into force. As per the mandate of this section, Tribunal has to give opportunity to the employer to justify the order of dismissal and also the proportionality of the punishment.

¶23

Since in the present case the order of dismissal has not been referred for adjudication to the Tribunal and as such neither the Tribunal has adopted the procedure prescribed under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act nor employer has adduced any evidence to justify the order of dismissal.

¶24

Since the order of dismissal was not in question, granting compassionate appointment was out of question. The death has not occurred in harness, rather it was after the expiry of the service. Further in the present case, identity and relationship of dependent has not been disclosed either in the terms of reference or in award. Giving relief to a vague person or vague dependent is not sustainable.

¶25

In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned award dated 19.01.2010 in Reference Case No. No.233/2000 passed by CGIT-I, Dhanbad is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, set aside.

¶26

Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶28

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The Day of 26^th of August, 2019 Shahid/N.A.F.R.

Employers in Relation to the Management of Ramkanali Colliery v. Their Workman Being Represented by Sri N G Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employers in Relation to the Management of Ramkanali Colliery v. Their Workman Being Represented by Sri N G Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employers in Relation to the M Vs Their Workman Smt. Ranjeet Kau

Shib Sadhan De The Secretary Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs Employers In Relation To The Magn Of Kustore Area P B Area Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Avanish Chandra Varma Vs M/S Berger Paints India Ltd. And

Sona Devi Vs The Employers In Relation To The Management Of B P Area Of Ms B C C L

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Govindpur Area Iii Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs Their Workman Shir Shiba Bhuiya Reprr Thr D K Mukherjee Secretary Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union

Chief General Manager Washery Division of Ms Bccl through Dr Harendra Kishore Vs Baijnath Mandal