Central Coalfields Limited v. Rajan & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2849 of 2019 ---- Afzal Amanullah son of Late Md. Neshar Ahmad, resident of Near Iden Tower, Karimganj, PO Basepur, PS and District Dhanbad. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Managing Director, B.C.C.L., Central Coal Washeries Organisation, PO PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, Lodhna Area of M/s BCCL, PO PS Bhaga, District Dhanbad. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad-III, PO PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 5. The Project Officer, Lodhna Colliery, B.C.C.Ltd., PO PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. … Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Petitioner : For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---- 07/ 02.02.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as his father died in harness on 21.03.2015 while he was working under the management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as BCCL). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the father of this petitioner was a workman in BCCL, who died in harness on 21.03.2015, thus, in view of Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents, by not appointing the petitioner, has committed grave illegality and has deprived the petitioner of his right. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of BCCL submits that appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. He further submits that the father of the petitioner was not a permanent employee of BCCL, thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.393 of 2017 [Central Coalfields Limited versus Rajan & Others] and L.P.A. No.506 of 2017 [Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi -: 2 :- versus Piyashi Devi & Others], the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are admitted in this case. Father of the petitioner, namely, Md. Neshar Ahmad was appointed as Fitter Apprentice Category I on 08/09th August, 1996. During course of his employment, he was transferred to various units of BCCL. Lastly, he was transferred and posted at Lodhna Colliery vide Office Order dated 09.02.1998. Father of this petitioner started absenting unauthorisedly with effect from 08.01.2002. Due to his unauthorized absence, vide dismissal order bearing Ref. No.BCCL/L/A/2003/Dismissal/41/838 dated 05/06.06.2003, father of the petitioner was dismissed from service. Said Md. Neshar Ahmad, after dismissal, filed a mercy petition to consider his case sympathetically. The case of the father of the petitioner was considered sympathetically and he was appointed as Badli Time Rated Worker Category I, as fresh employee. A settlement in Form ‘H’ in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered between the parties. It is necessary to quote relevant terms of settlement, which are as follows: - Terms & Conditions are as follows: 1. Md. Nisar Ahmad Ansari, Ex. Lamp Mazdoor, P. No.0135343 of Lodna Colly. will be reinstated as U/G Badli worker in T.R. job in Cat.I as a fresh appointment and posted at Lodna Colliery. 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. Confirmation of permanent employee in the post would be subject to completion of 190 days attendance in U/G in a calendar year. 7. The said settlement was duly signed by the father of this petitioner. 8. From the terms and conditions of the said settlement, it is clear that the appointment was a fresh appointment that too as a Badli worker and his confirmation as permanent employee will be subject to completion of 190 days’ attendance in one calendar year. It is an admitted fact that the -: 3 :- petitioner’s father did not complete 190 days in one calendar year thereafter, thus, his status remained as a Badli worker. 9. Clause 7.5 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company defines a Badli Worker or Substitute Workman. Clause 7.5 of the Certified Standing Order reads as follows:- “7.5 A badli or substitute is one who is employed is the post of a permanent workman or a probationer who is temporarily absent from duties, but he would cease to be a badly on completion of a continuous period of service of one year (190 days attendances in the case of an underground workman and 240 days attendances in the case of any other workmen) in the same posts or other post or posts in the same category.” 10. From the aforesaid definition, it is clear that a Badli Worker is not a permanent employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. He works in place of a permanent workman or a probationer or a workman, who is temporarily absent from duty. The Division Bench of this Court, while deciding L.P.A. No.393 of 11. 2017, vide order dated 22nd November, 2017, after taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Rani Devi reported in (1996) 5 SCC 308, has held that the legal heirs of confirmed employee can get compassionate appointment not otherwise. Further, this judgment was considered and relied upon by another Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.506 of 2017 [Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi versus Piyashi Devi & Others], referring to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.393 of 2017, the Division Bench, at paragraph 8, has held that legal heirs of confirmed employees will get compassionate appointment only and the law which has been laid down is as under:- “It should be kept in mind that unless the employee is confirmed by the Management, even if the training period mentioned in the appointment letter is over, such employee cannot be labeled as confirmed employee. Confirmation ought to be conferred by the Management. Confirmation -: 4 :- cannot be assumed or presumed even if trainee period is over.” 12. Admittedly, the father of this petitioner was not a permanent employee and was a Badli Worker. It is also an admitted fact that a Badli Worker is not a permanent employee, which is evident from the definition itself. Since father of the petitioner was not a permanent employee, in view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.393 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.506 of 2017, petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)