Hira Devi, Wife of – Late Baijat Munda @ Vijay Munda, Resident of v. 1. Central Coalfields Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Office at- Darbhanga
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 890 of 2016 Hira Devi, Wife of – Late Baijat Munda @ Vijay Munda, Resident of - Subhashnagar, Ranchi Dhoura, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District – Bokaro. Petitioner … … Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 2. The General Manager (personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District – Ranchi 3. Director (personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. The Project Officer, Khasmahal Project, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Sunday Bajar, P.S. Bermo, District – Bokaro. 5. Assistant Manager (Personnel), Khasmahal Project, (A.K.K., OCP), Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Sunday Bajar, P.S. Bermo, District- … Respondents Bokaro. … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-CCL --- : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate --- 13/08.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the reasoned order being Ref No. PO/A.K.KOCP/2016/3713 dated issued by Assistance Manager (personnel), K.M.P 09.01.16 (A.K.K., OCP), Central Coalfields Limited whereby and whereunder petitioner’s claim for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment after death of her husband has been rejected on the ground that on the date of death of petitioner’s husband, the said scheme was not in operation; And; (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon respondents to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner from 01.07.1991 when the said scheme was implemented as neither she nor her son have been offered compassionate appointment after death of her husband who was an employee of respondent Company.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner died on 10.04.1991 and her son was minor at the relevant point of time. Initially, when the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment for her son, the same was denied and she was informed that on completion of the age of 18 years, her son may submit his application. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a representation for appointment of her son on compassionate ground, but the proposal for compassionate appointment was declined vide order dated 10/11.02.1999. The said order refusing to grant compassionate appointment was not
Legal Reasoning
challenged, instead the petitioner along with her son filed a writ petition insisting upon the payment of death-cum-retiral benefits, gratuity with interest, life cover scheme at the present rate, Benevolent Fund with interest, Provident Fund and family pension and arrears of monetary benefit with interest which she had claimed vide representation dated 07.11.2004 followed by numerous
Decision
representations. When the amount was not paid, the writ petition being WP(S) No. 7831 of 2013 was filed, seeking compassionate appointment with respect to the son of the present petitioner and other post death benefits with regard to the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said writ petition was ultimately decided vide order dated 21.07.2015 wherein the claim for compassionate appointment was ultimately declined, but, it was observed that the respondents would take a decision regarding claim of other post death benefits to the petitioner. It was also observed that so far as the claim for monetary compensation is concerned, it did not appear from the documents filed in the writ petition that any such application was made by the petitioner at any point of time after the death of the employee. However, a liberty was reserved with the petitioner to make such a claim and the same was directed to be considered in accordance with law along with the consideration of other post death benefits. 5. The learned counsel also submits that pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2015 passed in WP(S) No. 7831 of 2013, the petitioner filed a representation and the claim of monetary compensation to the petitioner was declined by stating that the death of the husband of the petitioner had taken place on 10.04.1991 when National Coal Wage Agreement – IV (for the period from 01.01.1987 to 30.06.1991) was in operation and in N.C.W.A.-IV, there was no provision for monetary 2 compensation in the company and that the monetary compensation was introduced in N.C.W.A. – V, (for the period from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996) which was made effective from 01.07.1991. 6. The learned counsel has thereafter submitted that though he has not been able to lay hands on any circular or provision with regard to entitlement of claim of monetary compensation under N.C.W.A. – IV, but has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 1340 of 2009 in the case of “Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. M/s BCCL and others”, decided on 01.04.2019, wherein the date of death of the concerned employee was 23.03.1989, still a direction was issued to give monetary compensation from the date of application made for compassionate appointment and it was accordingly directed in the said case that the monetary compensation would be payable with effect from 27.08.1991. The learned counsel submits that against the said order, LPA No. 281 of 2020 was filed by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, but the appeal has been dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, N.C.W.A. – IV and N.C.W.A.–V have been placed on record. He refers to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.04.2024 and has submitted that as per N.C.W.A. – IV, there was only a provision for employment to one dependant of a worker who was permanently disabled and for one dependant of a worker who dies while in service, but there was no provision for grant of monetary compensation. The concept of monetary compensation was introduced for the first time vide N.C.W.A. – V. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to the N.C.W.A. – V, Clause – 9.5.0 and submitted that in case of death due to mine accident of a workman, the female dependent is entitled to receive monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or employment, irrespective of her age. He submits that NCWA-V also provides that in case of death or total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness as specified 3 under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is less than 45 years of age, she has the option either to accept monetary compensation at Rs. 2000/- per month or employment. It has also been stipulated that monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be payable till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years and the rate of monetary compensation would be reviewed with effect from 01.07.1996. 9. The learned counsel further submits that in absence of any provision for monetary compensation under N.C.W.A. – IV, which was applicable on the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, there is no question of payment of monetary compensation and accordingly, the impugned order may not be quashed. 10. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner rightly did not claim the monetary compensation for long years in view of the fact that she was never entitled and her entitlement cannot be taken to have been conferred by the order passed by this Court in the previous writ petition. He has relied upon one judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Eastern Coal Fields Limited Vs. Dukhni Bhuiya” in Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2023 decided on 13th October 2023 to submit that the said case also related to monetary compensation and only in the peculiar facts of the said case, the order regarding monetary compensation for a period of 3 years prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition was sustained. 11. He has also submitted that judgment in WP(S) No. 1340 of 2009 was passed in the case of Bhart Cocking Coal Limited and certain circulars were considered. In the said case, though the death had taken place on 23.03.1989 and the monetary compensation was already given but the effective date was 01.05.2008 and the parties were fighting with regard to the effective date of payment of monetary compensation; the effective date was ultimately held to be 27.08.1991 relying upon the circulars which provided that the date of application for compassionate appointment would be the cutoff date for grant of monetary compensation. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of N.C.W.A. -IV were not under consideration as the monetary compensation was already granted by M/s BCCL. 4 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the N.C.W.A. – IV has the force of law by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 (Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. and Others). 13. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner never claimed monetary compensation after the death of her husband who died on 10.04.1991 but was fighting for compassionate appointment and post death benefits. 14. However, the compassionate appointment was declined on 10/11.02.1999 with regard to her son which remain unchallenged till the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7831 of 2013 seeking compassionate appointment for her son and post death benefits for herself. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2015 and the claim for compassionate appointment to her son was refused to be entertained. So far as the post death benefits are concerned, a direction was issued to consider the grievance within a period of 10 days. While disposing off the writ petition, an observation with regard to monetary compensation was also made as under: “…So far as the claim of monetary compensation is concerned, it does not appear from the documents that any such an application was made by the petitioner at any point of time after the death of the employee. She is, however, at liberty to make such a claim, which may be considered in accordance with law within the same time.” 15. This Court finds that the claim of monetary compensation to the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 09.01.2016 and the grievance of the petitioner is only in connection with refusal to grant monetary compensation. The impugned order has been passed on the following grounds: - designated as Driver “(i) That Late Baijat Munda Cat. V was an employee of the respondent – CCL at Khas Mahal Project under B&K area. He died on 10.04.1991. (ii) That at the time of death of late Baijat Munda i.e. on 10.04.1991, the National Coal Wage Agreement – IV(NCWA-IV) (Period 01.01.1987 to 30.06.1991) was in operation, (iii) That in N.C.W.A. – IV, there was no provision for monetary compensation in the company. (iv) That the provision of Monetary Compensation was introduce in N.C.W.A.- V (Period 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996) as such the 5 effective date of monetary compensation was started w.e.f. 01.07.1991. (v) That Ex-employee Late Baijat Munda was died on 10.04.1991 i.e. prior to the operation of N.C.W.A.- V vide which the provision of monetary compensation was introduced. (vi) That it is submitted that at the time of death of ex-employee the provisions, norms, law, policy of the company does not allow the claim of monetary compensation.” 16. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the only reason for refusing to give monetary compensation to the petitioner was that on the date of death of her husband i.e. on 10.04.1991, N.C.W.A. – IV was in force and there was no such provision of monetary compensation under N.C.W.A.- IV. The concept of monetary compensation was introduced subsequently in N.C.W.A. – V. 17. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, N.C.W.A.- IV as well as V has been produced before this Court by filing a supplementary counter affidavit and no rejoinder to the same has been filed. 18. The N.C.W.A.- IV clearly provide for employment to dependent in terms of Clause – 9.4.0 under two different heads; “9.4.2. Employment of one dependant of the worker who dies while in service” and “9.4.3. Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place.” 19. This Court finds that N.C.W.A. – IV does not contain any provision for grant of monetary compensation to the widow of deceased employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any such provision under N.C.W.A. – IV or any other provision of law which entitles the widow of deceased employee who had expired as back as on 10.04.1991 to claim monetary compensation. 20. In N.C.W.A. – V a specific provision with regard to monetary compensation has been introduced as Clause 9.5.0 which is quoted as under: - “9.5.0.Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause – 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:- (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the 6 (ii) (iii) monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 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 concerned worker 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) & (ii) above. (v) (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. The rate of monetary compensation which stands at Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 3000/- per month as mentioned above would be reviewed w.e.f., 01-07-1996. The rate of monetary compensation will be reviewed as and when new wage agreements are finalized.” (vi) 21. It appears that there was no provision of monetary compensation for the widow of deceased employee under N.C.W.A. – IV during which the husband of the petitioner expired. It was introduced for the first time under N.C.W.A. – V, which was made effective from 01.07.1991. There is no such provision under N.C.W.A – V that monetary compensation would also be payable to those widows of Ex-employees who had expired prior to 01.07.1991 when N.C.W.A. – IV was applicable. 22. This Court finds that no provision for grant of monetary compensation has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has only relied upon the order passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 1340 of 2009 “Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. M/s BCCL and others”, decided on 01.04.2019, which was in relation to Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). The ex-employee in the said case expired on 23.03.1989 and BCCL had suo-moto granted monetary compensation with effect from 01.05.2008. The dispute involved in the said case was with regard to the date from which the monetary 7 compensation would be payable and the entitlement of monetary compensation was not in dispute. In the said background, this Court considered the circulars as recorded in the judgment itself and held that the monetary compensation is payable from the date of the application made for compassionate appointment. It further appears that the said judgment was also challenged in LPA No. 281 of 2020 but since the order of the Hon’ble Writ Court was complied, the LPA was withdrawn. This Court is of the considered view that the point as to whether the monetary compensation would at all be payable under the provisions of N.C.W.A. – IV or not was not the subject matter of consideration in WP(S) No. 1340 of 2009 (supra) and therefore the judgement passed in WP(S) No. 1340 of 2009 (supra) has no bearing on the issue involved in this case. 23. In view of the fact that the specific point which has been raised in the present case, is in connection with the entitlement of the petitioner for monetary compensation in terms of N.C.W.A. – IV and also the undisputed fact that N.C.W.A. – IV has the force of law in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra), this court is of the considered view that in absence of any provision under N.C.W.A. – IV entitling the petitioner to have monetary compensation the impugned order refusing to grant monetary compensation to the petitioner by referring to the provision of N.C.W.A. – IV, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj/Aditi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 8