Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - General Manager
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:5972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 729 of 2019 1 - Smt. Keshar Bai W/o Late Bajrang Lal Aged About 48 Years R/o Chhurikala,tahsil Katghora, P.S. Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner(s) District : Korba, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - General Manager (Mining)/sub Area Manager Regional S.E.C.L. Dhesib Sub Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Area Personnel Manager Secl Korba Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Korba, 3 - Roopchand S/o Late Bajrang Aged About 30 Years Category-1 Secl Bagdewa Colliery, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Union Of India Through Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Petitioner For Respondents/ : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate SECL For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey -2- Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order to set aside quashing the order impugned dated 03.08.2018, which is erroneous in the eye of law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondents authorities to give 50% amount of payment which has been deducted from the salary of the respondent no.3 is just and fair there is no ambiguity at all. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent no.1 for abiding the norms in appointment letter which has been inserted as per the agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.3 has to be carried out till the life span of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased Bajrang Lal. Bajrang Lal was an employee of SECL who died in harness on 07.08.2015. At the relevant time, he was working on the post of Welder in the respondent/SECL. He left behind his wife namely, Smt. Keshar Bai and five children. His son namely, Roopchand was offered a compassionate appointment and an affidavit was executed by Roopchand to the effect that he would properly take care of his mother and unmarried brother and 3 sisters and if any complaint is received against him, he would be liable to pay 50% of his salary. On such a condition, respondent No.3/Roopchand was appointed. 3. Later on, a complaint was made by the petitioner/mother of respondent No.3 namely, Roopchand before the respondent authorities on 27.04.2018 to the effect that respondent No.3/Roopchand failed to take care of his mother and unmarried brother and sisters. The management/SECL took a decision to deduct 50% of the amount from his salary and started making payments to his mother and unmarried brother and sisters of respondent No.3. Against the decision taken by the SECL, respondent No.3 approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.) and vide order dated 30.07.2018, the decision taken by the SECL was stayed and thereafter, a final order was passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on 30.10.2018 but that order has not been challenged by the petitioner/mother of respondent No.3. 4. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding which was pending before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Payment of Wages Act. He would further submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the order dated 30.10.2018 was passed, therefore, there is no need to challenge -4- the said order. He would further contend that an affidavit was submitted by respondent No.3 along with the application for the compassionate appointment with the condition that he would take proper care of his mother and unmarried brother and sisters and when he failed, a complaint was made and an order was passed by the SECL to deduct 50% amount from his salary. He would contend that as an affidavit was given by respondent No.3 before the SECL authorities, therefore, respondent No.3 cannot deviate from such an undertaking. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. He would submit that respondent No.3 is posted on the post of ‘General Mazdoor’ and he is getting a salary of Rs.28,780/- and a copy of the salary slip has been placed as Annexure R-3/1. He would further submit that the petitioner is getting a pension to the tune of Rs.10,242.56/- per month. He would contend that respondent No.3 is a married person; has a child and also has to maintain his own family. He would further contend that it would be very difficult for respondent No.3 to manage in a meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- as earlier Rs.16,000/- was being deducted by the Management, therefore, he approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) against such order and the application was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2018. He would contend that 5 the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL would submit that the decision taken by the SECL was strictly in accordance with the law. 7. Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would support the contentions made by Mr. Verma and Mr. Deshmukh. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. Admittedly, Bajrang Lal, who was a Welder in the SECL died in harness on 07.08.2015. An application for a dependent / compassionate appointment was moved with the consent of the other family members by Roopchand/respondent No.3 and the same was accepted and he was offered an appointment order on 30.07.2016. An affidavit was also submitted by respondent No.3 to the effect that he would take care of all family members, failing which, he would be liable to pay 50% of his salary to the mother and unmarried brother and sisters. It appears that a complaint was made by the petitioner/mother of respondent No.3 and consequently, a decision was taken by the SECL to deduct 50% of his salary. Respondent No. 3 challenged that order and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) vide order dated -6- 30.10.2018 quashed that order. 10.The petitioner in the present petition has not challenged that order. The reasons assigned by Mr. Pandey in this regard appear to be genuine that she was not arrayed as a party and she had no knowledge of that order. 11.Respondent No.3 was appointed on compassionate grounds with the consent of all family members including the petitioner and an undertaking was also given by respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No. 3 is under an obligation to maintain his mother and unmarried brother and sisters. As respondent No.3 is getting a salary of Rs.28,780/- per month according to the salary slip vide Annexure R-3/1 and the petitioner is receiving a pension to the tune of Rs.10,242.56/- per month, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Rs.10,000/- would be an appropriate amount for the petitioner for her dignified survival. The SECL authorities are directed to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the salary of respondent No.3 and make payment of this amount in the account of the petitioner each and every month. 12.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition
Decision
is disposed of. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge