AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an award dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned CGIT at Asansol.
Vide the impugned award the learned tribunal directed as follows:-
“Ordered
That the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part in favour of dependents of Binod Muchi. Jitendra Muchi, the son-in-law is not entitled to any compassionate employment in existence of any other direct dependents. Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to consider the name of any nominated direct dependent of Late Binod Muchi for providing employment on attaining majority. Sakunma Muchi, the widow shall be paid Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation at the prevailing rate as per provision under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement from the date of death of Binod Muchi till employment is provided to any of the dependent or till she attains 60 (sixty) years, whichever is earlier. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
Sd/-
Presiding Officer,
CGIT- cum-L.C., Asansol”
The award was passed on deciding the following issues:-
Whether the action of the Petitioner Company in not providing compassionate appointment to Sri Jitendra Muchi, son-in-law of the deceased employee, was justified,
Whether non-payment of monetary compensation to Smt. Sakunma Muchi was justified, and
The relief, if any, to which the said son-in-law and widow were entitled.
The petitioner has preferred the writ application being aggrieved that:-
No dispute concerning the entitlement of any daughter, that child or other dependant of Late Binod Muchi was referred for adjudication by the Appropriate Government. For that neither the daughters of Late Binod Muchi nor any other dependant claimed compassionate appointment before the Learned Tribunal and no issue regarding their entitlement arose for determination in the reference to the proceedings.
That the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-VI, as continued under NCWA-VIII, applies only where a male dependent of the deceased employee is aged 12 years or above but below 18 years at the time of death of the deceased employee and is kept on a live roster till he attains majority.
The Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that after recording à finding that Sri Jitendra Muchi, the son-in-law of the deceased employee, was not entitled to compassionate appointment, the claim for employment stood exhausted and no further direction regarding compassionate appointment could legally have been issued. Under the scheme contained in Clauses 9.3.0 and 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, compassionate employment can be granted only in the contingencies expressly contemplated therein and not otherwise.
In course of hearing, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in WPA 8323 of 2024 decided on 29.01.2025, Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Union of India and Ors. wherein, it is stated the Court decided on exactly the same issue which has been raised by the petitioner in the present writ application, that is the tribunal going beyond the order of reference. The Court held:-
“7.In Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Ors., (AIR 1964 SC 1746), decided on 1st April, 1964, the Supreme Court held:-
“7.In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind one essential fact, and that is that the Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is to try an industrial dispute referred to it for its adjudication by the appropriate Government by an order of reference passed under Section 10. It is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference, for it is well-settled that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power and jurisdiction from case to case. Section 10 itself has been subsequently amended from time to time. Act 18 of 1952 made substantial amendments in Section 10. One of these amendments was that Section 10(1)(d) now empowers the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication. In other words under Section 10(1)(d), the appropriate Government can refer to the Industrial Tribunal not only a specific industrial dispute, but can also refer along with it matters appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the said dispute. In that sense the power of the appropriate Government has been enlarged in regard to the reference of industrial disputes to the Tribunal.
8.Section 10(4) which was also added by the same amending Act provides, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal would be confined to the points of dispute specified by the order of reference, and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said points, deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under Section 18(3)(b) as it now stands…………..”
On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, it appears that:-
The learned tribunal rightly considered and decided the issue of eligibility and entitlement of Jitendra Muchi, the son-in-law of the deceased Binod Muchi.
The tribunal also rightly decided the entitlement of Smt. Sakunma Muchi, as to her monthly monetary cash compensation.
It is the part “Management of eastern coalfields limited is directed to consider the name of any nominated direct dependent of late Binod Muchi for providing employment on attaining majority”, that the petitioners claim is beyond the scope/issues in reference and thus liable to be quashed and set aside.
It appears from the materials on record that, in Para 6 of the impugned award, the names of the family members of the deceased has been noted, which shows that the deceased has left behind, his wife and daughter and sons.
As such the direction for consideration of the direct descendant of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment being clearly incidental/connected to the issues in reference, suffers from no illegality and thus requires no interference by this Court.
WPA 15853 of 2026 is dismissed.
Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.