Manju Devi vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shivam Sahay, the learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground on the basis of valid succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in Succession Case No.32 of 2013 vide judgment

dated 26.02.2015 passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh.

The petitioner is wife of late Sanicharwa Bediya. Late Sanicharwa Bedia got his appointment in the respondent CCL as Explosive Mazdoor,

Category â€"II. He died on 18.10.2011 in the hospital of the respondent CCL and to that effect a death certificate has been issued by the doctor of

the respondent CCL on 01.12.2011 contained in Annexures-1 and 1/1. The petitioner made application for providing her appointment on

compassionate ground in view of the provisions of clause 9.3.0/9.4.0 of the NCWA vide letter dated 17.03.2012. The order dated 12.05.2012 was

passed and the same was rejected on the ground that the name of the petitioner is not available in the service record of the deceased employee. The

petitioner challenged that order before this Court in W.P.(S) No.549 of 2013. W.P.(S) No.549 of 2013 was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner

has not been able to prove that she is the wife of late Sanicharwa Bedia. Thereafter the petitioner moved before the competent court of law for

obtaining the succession certificate which was granted by the judgment dated 26.02.2015 by Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh. The petitioner again

approached the Court by way of filing Civil Review No.86 of 2017. The said civil review was dismissed on 13.02.2019 in view of limited purview of

the review. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation it transpires that the succession certificate

is necessary. He submits that the succession certificate was obtained by the petitioner later on when it came to the knowledge of her that due to that

the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has not been considered. He submits that in view of the limited scope of the review and being a new

document, the court has not entertained the review petition. He submits that in view of the NCWA, the case of the petitioner is required to be

considered afresh. He submits that the petitioner has also approached by way of filing the representation before the respondent CCL, but no decision

has been taken as yet.

Per contra, Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel for the respondent CCL submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition was dismissed and

the civil review has also been dismissed thus, the matter has attained finality and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He

submits that the cause of action is of the year 2015 and in view of the time consumed in between, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground

of delay and laches also.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has perused the materials on record. It transpires from the

judgment dated 18.07.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.549 of 2013 that it was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to prove that

she is the legally wedded wife of late Sanicharwa Bedia. Thereafter the petitioner approached the competent court of law for obtaining succession

certificate which has been granted by judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh. The review

petition was dismissed in view of the fact that this document was not before the writ court when earlier round of litigation was there and in view of

limited scope of the review, the review petition was dismissed. The National Coal Wage Agreement [NCWA] is having the statutory force in view of

the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd.â€, (2007) 8 SCC 549, paragraph

nos.2 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

“2. The appellant’s father, Rameshwar Mahto was employed as a fitter, Category IV, in a coal mine belonging to the respondent known as

Kuju Colliery. He died in harness on 23-2-1997. The terms and conditions of the service of the workmen working in coal mines are inter alia governed

by a “settlement†known as National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) V. Indisputably, the said settlement, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section

18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on the parties. Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA V refers to appointment of dependants of the deceased

employees working in the coal mines; sub-clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 whereof reads as under:

“(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and

the male dependant of the worker concerned is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment

commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female

dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at Paras (i) and (ii) above.â€​

A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to

remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We

would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment

on compassionate grounds. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the

settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act

would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds, subject, of course, to compliance with the conditions

precedent contained therein.â€​

The petitioner is now having the succession certificate, and thus, considering that the petitioner is an illiterate, the case of the petitioner is required to

be considered afresh in the light of the NCWA. The petitioner has already approached by way of filing the representation but no decision has been

taken as yet by the respondent CCL. The petitioner has preferred such representation in the year 2015 which was not decided, however, thereafter

the petitioner has moved in civil review which was rejected on 13.02.2019 thus, there is continuity of litigation and in that view of the matter, the delay

and laches ground is not applying in the case of the petitioner.

Accordingly, in the light of the succession certificate and considering the provisions of the NCWA, the case of the petitioner is required to be

considered afresh by the respondent CCL.

As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the

respondent no.3 annexing all the relevant credentials on which the petitioner is relying for such relief within three weeks.

If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall take a decision in accordance with the rules, regulations and

guidelines and considering the provisions of the NCWA within 8 weeks thereafter.

It goes without saying that if any decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be provided to the petitioner within six

weeks further thereafter.

With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.