AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-
This writ application has been preferred challenging the award dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, in reference case no. 14 of 2023 (Management of Jambad OCP, Kajora Area of M/s. ECL vs. Sri Chando Majhi).
Vide the impugned order the learned Tribunal held as follows:-
“ORDERED that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the dependent son and wife of Late Mangru Majhi, ex-employee of Jambad CP under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to provide employment to Chando Majhi, the dependent son of the deceased employee on observance of all formalities within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award. Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is also directed to pay Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation to Budhani Mejhain, the widow of the deceased employee from 01.05.2001 till employment is provided to her son as per provision of Clause 9.5.0 at the admissible rate provided in the National Coal Wage Agreement. 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.”
The petitioner’s case herein is that the Reference before the learned Tribunal arose out of the Government of India Order No. L-22012/12/ 2023-IR(CM-II) dated 07.02.2023, whereby the following dispute was referred for adjudication:-
“whether the action of the Management of Jambad OCP, Kajora Area, M/s E.C.Ltd. in not providing compassionate appointment to Sri Chando Majhi in place of his deceased father Late Mangru Majhi, Ex-E.P.Helper (U.M.NO.578049) and not providing Monthly Monetary Compensation (MMS) to Smt. Budhani Mejabin wife of Late Mangru Majhi fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the dependent of the deceased workman concerned is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
The facts of the present case as stated by the petitioner is that Late Mangru Majhi was employed as E.P. Helper at Jambad OCP under Kajora Area of the Petitioner No. 1 and died in harness on 01.05.2001, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Budhani Mejhain (Respondent No. 5), and minor son, Shri Chando Majhi (Respondent No. 4). On 18.06.2001, ie, within two months of the death, the Respondent No. 5 submitted an application before the management for her own employment, claiming benefits under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The management offered her the option of monetary compensation in lieu of employment, which she accepted. However, the Respondent No. 5 failed to submit the complete documents as required under the scheme. Despite the passage of time, the Respondent No. 5 did not follow up with the required documents. After a lapse of approximately four years, the Respondent No. 5 submitted an application on 22.08. 2005 before the Agent, Jambad OCP, for employment of her son, Respondent No. 4, without enclosing supporting documents.
Thereafter, after approximately nine years, the Respondent No. 5 submitted another application on 18.10.2014, and for the first time, the Respondent No. 4 himself submitted a separate application for compassionate employment, nearly thirteen years after the death of his father. The claim for employment of the Respondent No. 4 was processed and ultimately rejected by the competent authority vide letter dated 11.02.2017, which communicated the rejection dated 31.01.2017 by the Area Personnel Manager, Kajora Area, on the ground that it was a belated case and as per the Company's circular could not be considered.
Between 2013 and 2017, the management convened several screenings at unit level for the compassionate appointment claim of the Respondent No.4, issuing letters dated 22/23.10.2013, 08.02.2015, 12/13.08.2015, 09.06.2016 and 15/16.01.2017, to examine his candidature. For the Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC), the Respondent No. 5 submitted an application on 22.08.2019, nearly nineteen years after the death of her husband. The screening was done at Unit Level and a proposal was sent to the Kajora Area Office on 12.09.2019. However, the competent authority rejected the claim on the ground of delay vide letter dated 23.12.2020, and the same was communicated to the Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21.01.2021.
The petitioner in support of their stand of delay has relied upon the judgments of this Court in:-
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnam Pradhan (MAT No.1036 of 2011) .
Nunibala Mondal @ Nuni Mondal and Ors. v. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. (WP 1660(w) of 2016).
It is thus the case of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal could not have considered the prayer of the respondent when there was such a long delay. It is further stated that the learned tribunal did not consider the appropriate provision of the NCWA while granting the said relief to the respondent. It is further stated that the learned tribunal wrongly applied the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sukhomoni Majhan v. Union of India and Ors. (MAT 27 of 2024), though the petitioner admits that the NCWA does not prescribed the time limit. In course of hearing the copy of email has been placed before this court by the learned Counsel for the respondent wherein it appears that the petitioner authority has stated as follows:-
“The competent authority has accorded approval to the stand proposed by the Management, namely, that:
a)Both benefits cannot be extended simultaneously.
b)The Management is willing to extend Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) from the date of death of the deceased employee until the date on which she would have attained the age of 60 years, as per the service records of the deceased employee.
c)Compassionate employment to any direct dependent
cannot be considered, as more than 25 years have elapsed since the date of death of the deceased employee.”
On perusal of the impugned award it appears that the employee of the petitioner herein died in harness on 01.05.2001 died leaving behind his widow and minor son. On 18.06.2001 the widow of the deceased submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner did not process her claim for employment and asked her to receive monthly monetary cash compensation in lieu of employment. The petitioner management did not pay the monetary compensation nor did they communicate anything to her for four years. For such delay the widow of the deceased submitted an application on 14.11.2005 praying for employment of her son Chandu Maji. Once again the management did not respond to the prayer for employment for which the complaint was made.
From 2013-19 the dependants of the deceased were called for screening. Subsequently the prayer for employment Chandu Maji was processed and sent to the Head Quarters but the same was rejected on 10.12.2020. On the pretext that it was not possible to reopen the claim filed after 20 years of the death of the ex employee. The said contention of the petitioner is completely against the principle of natural justice and also an abuse the process of law. Considering that there was absolutely no delay in making an application in the year 2001, which was done within one month from the death of the employee by the widow.
As the petitioner did not press the same for four years, in 2005 the son applied for employment. The total delay in the present case is solely and wholly on the part of the petitioner management.
This Court finds it is difficult to understand as to how a company of such stature could even take such a stand. It absolutely clear that the total delay is on the part of the petitioner management. In fact, in view of the said delay the private respondents have suffered irreparable loss and injury for the conduct of the management petitioner herein. A loss which even being compensated as directed by the Tribunal, cannot filled up. The sole contention of the petitioner is delay in the present case which this Court finds is entirely the fault of the writ petitioner themselves. The petitioner herein cannot make out a case against the private respondent when the delay caused in solely on their part.
More so, considering that the application of Chandu Maji has been rejected only on the ground of delay.
This Court considering the conduct of the petitioner thinks that in such conduct huge cost should be imposed upon the management, who do not have a clear conscience when they do not decide such cases, compassionately. But this court is not inclined to impose any cost upon the management solely on the ground that the petitioner will further delay the relief to be granted to the private respondent as directed by the learned tribunal in its impugned orders.
The learned tribunal’s specific findings granting relief are as follows:-
“18.Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA makes provision for employment to the dependent of an employee in case of permanent disability or death while in service of the company. Clause 9.3.2 deals with the employment or payment of monetary compensation to a female dependent which is governed under Clause 9.5.0. On a close reading of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) it appears that in case of death either in a mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is twelve 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 dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000. The application for employment of Chando Majhi, the dependent son was filed on 22.08.2005 (Exhibit W-5/M-2), where Budhani Mejhain stated that her son's age at the relevant time was twenty years. Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA clearly states that if no employment is offered and male dependent is 12 (twelve) years or above, his name has to be maintained in the Live Roster. This is a duty cast upon the employer irrespective of any formal application is made by the dependent of the employee. The application for monetary compensation was submitted at a later period of time on 05.07.2016 (Exhibit M-5) at the instance of the management. Therefore, the dependent wife is entitled to monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband till employment is provided to the dependent son. The record reveals that Chando Majhi was two years of age on 01.04.1987, therefore he was a minor until 01.04.2003. It emerges from such fact and circumstances that Chando Majhi, the dependent son having claimed employment as a dependent is entitled to get employment under ECL on observance of all formalities. Budhani Mejhain, the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation from 01.05.2001 to 31.03.2003 at the rate provided in the NCWA. The Industrial Dispute is allowed in favour of the dependents.”
In view of the said facts this court finds that the impugned order under challenged being in accordance with law requires not interference.
The petitioner management is directed to comply with the order of the impugned award within 30 days from the date of this judgment and order.
WPA 14569 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.