Lalita Devi vs BCCL Dhanbad and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 9th August, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 253 of 2000, whereby the petitioner''s application for impleading her partly in the said reference has been rejected.

It has been stated that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased concerned workman, namely, Etwari Ram. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was given monetary benefit in lieu of employment till her son is not provided with employment. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 5, who claims to be the petitioner''s stepson, raised a dispute, claiming his right for compassionate appointment. The dispute was referred to the said Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The term of the reference is as follows:

Whether the action of the management of BCCL Koyla Bhawan, in refusing employment to the dependent son of '' the deceased workman, namely, Shri Ram Swarup Ram is justified, if not to what relief the defendant son of the deceased workman is entitled?

The petitioner, on coming to know about the said reference, filed application for her addition as a party to the said case, according to the petitioner, if the reference is decided in favour of said Ram Swarup Ram, the monetary benefit, which is being given to the petitioner, monthly, may be stopped to her prejudice and as such, her presence in the said reference case is necessary for safeguarding her interest and the interest of justice.

Learned Presiding Officer by his order dated 9th August, 2005 rejected the petitioner''s prayer for addition as party to the said reference and passed the following order:

Heard from each side on the petition of impleading the party.

Since the Tribunal cannot go beyond the schedule of reference or can enlarge the scope, hence petition is rejected.

So 10.11.2005 for evidence of workman.

It is evident from the impugned order that the learned Presiding Officer has casually dealt with the petitioner''s application and has not applied his mind on her claim made in the petition. The said application has been rejected only, on the ground that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the schedule of reference and the reference cannot be enlarged.

Notices were issued to the respondents.

Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent - BCCL as also Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 made their submissions. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel, submitted that he neither supports nor objects the impugned order, as the BCCL has got no concern with the effect of the said order.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, however, opposed the writ petition. Learned Counsel submitted that the reference had to be answered in favour or against the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner was not going to be prejudiced by the award in any way. The respondent No. 5 is the son of the deceased workman and that he has been fighting for his legal claim. No prayer against the respondent No. 5 had been made by the petitioner and as such, her presence is not necessary or even proper in the said reference case.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. Whether the petitioner''s presence in the circumstances of the case is necessary/proper is the one point to be considered and decided by learned Presiding Officer for disposing of the petitioner''s application for addition as a party to the case. Learned Presiding Officer has not at all considered the said aspect. Learned Presiding Officer has not discussed and made it clear as to how the addition of the petitioner would affect the schedule of reference or exceed the scope of the same when the petitioner wants her addition to safeguard her interest and has not prayed for any addition in the term of the reference. When the petitioner''s monetary benefit, being given to her monthly, is likely to be affected if the award is answered in favour of the said step-son, her prayer for addition cannot be held to be improper or in excess of the scope of the reference. Learned Presiding Officer without considering the same has cryptically and mechanically rejected the petitioner''s application.

For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 9th August, 20Q5 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 253 of 2000 (Annexure-5) cannot sustain in law and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for fresh consideration and disposal of the petitioner''s said application.

This writ petition is allowed in the said terms.