The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 6968 of 2017 Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. – Koyla Nagar, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its Project Officer, Dilip Kumar Mishra Son of Bhola Nath Mishra Colliery, P.O. – Kusunda P.S. – Pootkee, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Petitioner … … -Versus- 1. Smt. Samla Devi, wife of Late Dibakar Rabidas, resident of Putkee Colony, Srinagar, P.O. & P.S. – Kusunda, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Applicant-Respondent 2. The General Manager, Putkee Balihari Area (P.B. Area) of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. & P.S. – Kusunda, District – Dhanbad Proforma Respondent (Jharkhand) … --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Manjushree Patra, Advocate --- : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate 07/18th June 2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- the petitioner “(a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for setting aside the order dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 25 of 2016, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to allow the application filed by the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and direct to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 21.09.2009 till the date of actual payment, within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which petitioner was directed to pay simple interest @ 9% from the expiry of said 60 days till the date of actual payment and also to pay lump sum cost of litigation of Rs. 3000/-.” (b) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly referred to the order dated 19.06.2023 passed in W.P.(L) No. 6969 of 2017 and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court has interfered with only in connection with 1 direction for payment of the interest. He has referred to paragraph nos. 27 to 30 of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the present
Decision
writ petition be disposed of in terms of W.P.(L) No. 6969 of 2017. 5. In the present case, the wife of the workman i.e. Respondent No.1 filed a case before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being M.J. Case No. 25/2016 stating that her husband was a permanent employee of BCCL and on 16.09.2009 he met with an accident in the underground mine while on duty and died on 21.09.2009 during treatment. When the BCCL refused to pay compensation the respondent no.1 filed W.C. Case No.55/2011 under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in which compensation was fixed and paid. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a fresh case being M.J. Case No. 25/2016 claiming the ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of Clause 9.2.7 of the National Coal Wage Agreement VIII. 6. The Management appeared and filed its written statement (Annexure- 3) taking a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the proceeding under Section33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also opposed the claim by stating that there has been no fatal accident in which the deceased employe lost his life and that no payment was earlier claimed under the provisions of NCWA Policy of the Company. 7. The learned court framed the following two issues for consideration: - (i) Whether the instant case is maintainable u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in the absence of pre-existing right? (ii) Whether claim of the applicant for ex-gratia as per provision of 9.2.7 of the NCWA-VIII read with circular (Ext. A- 1) to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest is genuine? 8. It was placed on record before the learned court that arising out of the same incident, the management had disputed the entitlement of the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act in W.C. Case No.55/2011 which was ultimately disposed of in favour of the Respondent No.1 vide order dated 31.03.2014 and that the compensation with interest was already paid to the Respondent No.1. 2 9. The learned court held that virtually it was a matter of computation / calculation of dues in question as well as a matter of interpretation regarding applicability of provisions of NCWA and circulars issued thereunder and held that the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was maintainable. 10. Thereafter, the learned court decided Issue No.(ii) by referring to the provisions of NCWA dealing with Workmen’s Compensation Benefits under Clause 9.2.0, relevant at 9.2.7, wherein it has been recorded that on Coal Indian Foundation Day on 01.11.2007 at Kolkata, it was announced by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Coal that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the next of kin of any employee dying out of fatal mine accident. The circular dated 14.11.2007 issued by the Coal India Limited was also quoted which deals with payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the dependent of the employee, who dies or is permanently disabled in any mine accident arising out and in course of employment and the same would be in addition to the amount payable under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 11. Clause 9.2.7 of NCWA and the circular dated 14.11.2007 has been considered and interpreted by the learned court and it has been held that fatal accident means an accident-causing death. The learned court held that once the compensation was fixed under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Management could not argue that there was no accident. The plea of the Management that the death was a natural death was rejected. 12. The learned court, upon interpretation of the provision of NCWA and the circular governing fatal accident in mine, recorded specific finding that such accidental death arising out of and in course of employment caused in the premises of mine has to be treated to be a mine accident and directed for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- ex-gratia with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 21.09.2009 till the date of actual payment. 13. This Court finds that as per the provision of NCWA and the circular quoted in the impugned award it has been specifically provided that in any mine accident arising out and in course of employment, ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs would be payable in addition to the amount payable under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 3 14. This Court is of the considered view that once the entitlement under the Workmen’s Compensation Act arising out of accident in mine was found payable for the death of the employee, the entitlement of payment of additional ex-gratia amount stood crystallized and payable and could have been directed to be paid by passing an order under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court finds that the learned court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to interpret the provision of NCWA and the circular. Such exercise of power was incidental to the power of the Court exercising power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 who has the power to interpret the award or settlement like that of the executing court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. 15. This Court is of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 19.06.2023 passed in W.P.(L). No. 6969 of 2017 with regard to the maintainability of the petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and also with regard to the claim of the private respondent no. 1 concerning ex-gratia payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in terms of the provision of Clause – 9.2.7 of NCWA – VIII read with the circular. In the said writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 6969 of 2017, both the issues were decided in favor of the private respondent and this Court refuse to interfere with the order passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 directing payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, this court interfered with the order regarding payment of interest. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order directing payment of ex-gratia amount by exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the private respondent amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, does not call for any interference. 17. So far as payment of interest on Ex-gratia payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, the same is fit to be set aside in view of the findings of this court in the judgement passed in W.P.(L). No. 6969 of 2017(supra). Paragraph 27 to 29 of the said judgement dealing with the point of interest is quoted as under:- " 27. So far as the payment of interest is concerned, the learned court has directed for payment of simple interest @ 6% from the date of death till the date of actual payment within 60 days from the date of the order and on default interest @ 9% has 4 been directed to be paid from the date of expiry of 60 days. As per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, Section 33C deals with recovery of money from an employer which becomes due from the employer under a settlement or under an award. Such provision is without prejudice to any other mode of recovery and if the appropriate government is satisfied that the money is so due, a certificate is to be issued for the amount to the Collector who is to proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Sub-Section 2 of Section 33C of the Industrial disputes Act ,1947 further provides that if a question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question is to be decided by the labour court. This Court finds that provisions of Section 33C deals with recovery of money which has already been quantified or if so required, capable of being computed by the labour court and is in the nature of execution proceedings. 28.This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for passing an order for payment of interest over and above whatever is due under the settlement or over and above whatever is due as per the award. If the settlement or award provides for payment of interest, the same would be computed in terms of Section 33C, but the court would have no jurisdiction to direct payment of any amount over and above whatever is computed as per the settlement or as per the award. 29.The award of interest by the learned labour court in the instant case is not arising out of any settlement or award and interest has been awarded only as a part of equitable relief. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court had no jurisdiction to award any interest in equity as it was bound to determine and quantify payable amount only in terms of the pre-existing right on the basis of any award or settlement. In absence of any such pre-existing right to claim any interest on ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs in terms of the aforesaid provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement and the circular, which is the basis of the claim, the award of interest by the learned labour court on payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order directing payment of interest on the ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs is set-aside. However, in case the computed amount is sought to be recovered through any certificate proceedings, the statutory interest, as applicable to the certificate proceedings will be payable in accordance with law." 5 18. This Court finds that on the point of interest also, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P.(L) No. 6969 of 2017. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order directing payment of interest on the ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs is set-aside. 20. However, in case the computed amount is sought to be recovered through any certificate proceedings, the statutory interest, as applicable to the certificate proceedings will be payable in accordance with law. 21. This writ petition is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Aditi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6