S.P.TALUKDAR, J. - (1.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner, as ventilated in the instant application, relates to alleged indifference and inaction on the part of the respondents -authority in providing the petitioner with employment.
(2.) THE factual backdrop of the present case is: With the death of the petitioner's mother, Boti Singh, on 26th August, 1993, the petitioner, Bablu Singh approached the respondents-authority for employment under die-in-harness scheme under Clause 9:4:2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 27th September, 1994 and was declared selected. He had undergone the medical test, as asked for. He was assured that appointment letter would be issued in his favour. There had been strange silence for quite some time. The petitioner made several representations. On 5th March, 1997, he was informed by the Personnel Manager of Gopinathpur Colliery that since he was a minor being 15 years 10 months 11 days of age, at the time of his mother's death, the authority -concerned was not in a position to offer employment. The petitioner and others whom his mother left behind continued to suffer from terrible financial distress. Being so advised, the petitioner followed this up by submitting further representation. After few years, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director and Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Ltd, decided to reconsider the matter. By letter dated 29th August, 2000 the Manager of the Colliery asked for detailed particulars and relevant documents. After processing; the matter, by letter dated 16th February, 2001; the General Manager of the area was asked to consider the grievances of the petitioner. The authority went on assuring the petitioner but nothing concrete was done. The petitioner then approached the higher authorities by letter dated 14th October, 2005 for such employment. As per provisions prevailing during 1985 -1995 the dependent of the deceased employee, in the age group of 18 to 25 years, was to apply for employment. The petitioner had no option but to wait for some time and then, approached for such employment immediately after attaining majority. His claim was duly considered and he successfully cleared the selection process. The respondents -authority was not justified in refusing the employment in such circumstances on flimsy ground that he was a minor at the time of death of his mother. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 contested the case by filing affidavit -in -opposition, wherein all the material allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It was claimed that National Coal Wage Agreement is a non -statutory agreement and it cannot be specifically enforced by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner can seek such enforcement of his right, if any, before the Industrial Tribunal. It was also claimed that the controversy involves the disputed questions of fact and the writ Court should not go into the same. From the service excerpts of the mother of the petitioner it could be gathered that he was only 15 years 10 months 11 days on 26th August, 1993 when his mother died. The respondents alleged that the petitioner was duly informed that he could not be accommodated as would appear from letter dated 5thMarch, 1997.
(3.) THE stand of the respondents -authority as revealed from the said document being Annexure R -2 may be reproduced as follows: The age of the dependent as per Form -Q and service excerpts it is seen that the age of the son comes 15 years 10 months 11 days at the time of death of his mother i.e., 26.8,1993. So the case cannot be considered at that stage due to minority. Please confirm the dependent accordingly.;