The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 499 of 2009 Employer in relation to the Management of Sijua Colliery of Messrs. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (now Tata Steel Ltd.) having its Registered office at 24 Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai and one of its Collieries known as Sijua Colliery, Jamadoba in the District of Dhanbad, Jharkhand through Mrs Meena Lall W/o Sri B. Lall, N.2 Park Enclave, Park Road, Northern Town, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Chief (Corporate) Legal Services, Tata Steel Ltd, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Versus … … Petitioner Employment, Shram Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Workman represented by Secretary, Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, 6 & 7 Pits, Jamadoba, P.O. Bhaga, Dist Dhanbad. … Respondents … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the UOI For the Resp. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate --- 17/26.09.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(i) Quashing/ setting aside the award dated 25th of August, 2008 published on 11.9.2008 (copy received by the petitioner on 12.11.2008) made by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in reference case no. 64 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the learned Industrial Tribunal has directed the management of TISCO "to provide employment to Ashok Kumar, dependant son of Late Ganesh Prasad within two months from the date of publication of award. (ii) For staying/ keeping in abeyance the implementation of the award dated 25th of August, 2008 aforesaid during the pendency of this writ application." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has directed the management to provide employment to Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad as dependent son of ex- employee Ganesh Prasad. He submits that there is no scheme for giving compassionate appointment. However, it has come in the award that the petitioner maintains a register for the dependents of the 1 employees and at best the learned Tribunal could have directed to put the name of Ashok Kumar in that register whose employment could be considered along with others depending upon future vacancies as and when the vacancy arises and the management was required to consider the case of Ashok Kumar as per their existing policies. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has referred to paragraph 6 of the impugned award and submits that appropriate order may be passed so that the name of Ashok Kumar be placed in the Register and his case be considered against future vacancy as per the scheme of the petitioner. He has submitted that in paragraph 12 of the written statement filed by the management, they had stated that the concerned person could submit his mercy petition and his name could be enrolled if the joint decision could be made by the management and the recognized union RCMS as a special case. He has also submitted that it is not in dispute that the father of Ashok Kumar was an employee of the petitioner and he had completed 15 years of service and the condition precedent for entry of his son in the Register was duly satisfied. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the terms of reference was as follows: "Whether the action of the management of M/S. TISCO in denial to provide employment to Ashok Kumar son of late Ganesh Prasad is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?" 6. The learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to provide employment to Ashok Kumar, dependent son of Late Ganesh Prasad within a period of two months from the date of publication of the award. However, as per the discussions made in paragraph 6 of the impugned award, it is clear that as per the scheme of the management, a Register is to be maintained for the purposes of maintaining the list which is known as Employee Dependent Register and the cases are taken up against future vacancies along with other eligible candidates. 7. Paragraph 6 of the impugned award is quoted as under: 2 late father filed application "The main argument on behalf of the management is that the name of Ashok Kumar has not been mentioned by his father in the Employees Dependents Register. In this respect the learned counsel for the workman argued that he had given his application for employment of his son, Ashok Kumar for registering in the Employees Dependents Register as per Ext. W-3 which has been proved by Ashok Kumar, WW-1. The for concerned workman's registering the name of his son Ashok Kumar for employment. It is upto the management who registers it or not. The management has not produced its register of Dependent Employment so that it can be gathered that the register has been properly maintained or not. In this respect MW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he has not filed any paper to show the number of dependents waiting for employment. It only shows that the management always hide and seek the Employees Dependent Register, so that it can discourage of any merit as per document and admission of the management. Late Ganesh Prasad had completed 15 years of his service and died due to T.B. as per Ext. W-1. It has been admitted that Ashok Kumar's father died after putting 15 years of service and died due to T.B. and it was agreed by the management before A.L.C. (C) on 25.3.96 that employment be given to Ashok Kumar, but it has not been done so. Moreover, in the written statement it has been admitted by the management in para 12 that the concerned person may submit his mercy petition and his name may be enrolled if the joint decision can be made by the management and the recognized union, RCMS as a special case and his case may be considered for his employment against future vacancies alongwith other eligible candidates. It shows that the concerned workman's late father gave application for registering the name of his son in the Employees Dependent Register and he died due to T.B. after putting 15 years of service and the management had considered and assured for his employment as per para 12 of the written statement and Ext. W-2 conciliation proceeding before A.L.C.(C), but it has not been done by the management best reason known to them." 8. There is no material on record to show that there was any scheme for compassionate appointment in the petitioner company. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Presiding Officer could have at best directed the petitioner to put the name of Ashok Kumar in the said Register i.e. Employee Dependent Register instead of giving a direction for appointment of 3 Ashok Kumar. The case of Ashok Kumar is certainly required to be considered as per the norms equally applicable to other employees. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has also agreed to the aforesaid modification in connection with operative portion of the award. 11. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 25th August 2008 is hereby modified directing the petitioner to enter the name of Ashok Kumar in the Employee Dependent Register upon an application to be filed by him and his case be considered for appointment as per the scheme of the petitioner and the existing norms. The needful be done by Ashok Kumar within a period of one month from the date of
Decision
communication of this order to the learned Tribunal. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. 14. 15. Let this order be communicated to the learned Tribunal through Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Interim order stands vacated. 'FAX/email'. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4