- (1.) Theses five writ petitions are at the instance of the erstwhile employees and are filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide for employment to the dependants of the petitioners with all benefits from the date of termination of the employment as per National Coal Wage Agreements and other consequential reliefs.
(2.) These applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the common question of fact and law has arisen therein. For convenience, the W.P. No.1847(W) of 2009 is taken up first. W.P. No.1847(W) of 2009:-
(3.) The following facts are not in dispute:- i) That the petitioner was appointed by the erstwhile employer and after the nationalization, the petitioner was employed under the General Manager, Bankola Area and was working under the Agent/Deputy Chief Mining Engineer of the said colliery; ii) That as per service condition, the petitioner was covered and governed by the National Coal Wage Agreements signed between the management and the representatives of the workmen; iii) That the petitioner suffered from disablement arising out of and in course of employment and he was directed to appear before the Medical Board; iv) That the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board accordingly and he was found unfit for duty; v) That in consequence of unfitness, he was terminated from service on the medical ground; vi) That then the petitioner submitted an application in prescribed form in compliance with the direction for employment of his dependant; vii) That a Screening Committee was formed for the employment as per the said National Coal Wage Agreement and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Screening Committee along with the dependant son and all the necessary papers. This happened in the year 1994; viii) That thereafter, for inaction on the part of the employer, the petitioner along with others filed a writ petition being W.P. No.23 of 1996 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court on February 24, 1998 directing for employment of the dependant of the petitioner; ix) That the respondents preferred an appeal which was disposed of modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge on November 5, 1998 and directed the respondents to consider the representation; x) That then on December 2, 1998, the respondents rejected the application for appointment; xi) That one P.G. Ghosh, one of the joint applicants of the earlier writ petition preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.440 of 2001, which was allowed; xii) That then on December 21, 2004, the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing to provide employment within four months; xiii) That an appeal being G.A. No.826 of 2005 was preferred by the respondents, which was dismissed on May 13, 2005 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondents were directed to provide employment accordingly; xiv) That the petitioner expected that their dependants would also be appointed but in vain; and xv) That this writ application has been preferred.;