SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 02.04.2012 in Reference Case No. 131 of 2001 whereby the action of the respondentCCL in not providing employment to the dependent of late Parna has been held justified, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are that, one Parna was employed as S.F. Khalasi in Argada Colliery who died in harness on 23.03.1990. His wife namely, Fulko Devi submitted an application seeking employment for her elder son namely, Mohan Bedia. In the meantime, Mohan Bedia died on 04.2.1996 and therefore, Fulko Devi submitted another application on 25.12.1996 seeking employment for her younger son namely, Suraj Nath Bedia. Several other applications were also submitted by Fulko Devi seeking employment for her younger son however, the proposal for employment to Suraj Nath Bedia was regretted. An industrial dispute was raised by Coalfield Mazdoor Union and upon failure of the conciliation proceeding, the Central Government vide order dated 22.05.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. Before the Tribunal the Management took a stand that the said workman namely, Parna was working since 01.04.1974 and in his service excerpts of 1987 he has declared the name of his wife, Fulko Devi and son, Raj Kumar. The workman abandoned his service with effect from 15.07.1989 and thereafter, his wife made an attempt to get one of her relatives employed in service by declaring him as the dependent son. The Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in affirmative holding that the action of the Management, Argada Colliery of M/s CCL in not providing employment to the dependent of late Parna is justified. Aggrieved, the Coalfields Mazdoor Union has preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 8 in award dated 02.04.2012 wherein, the Tribunal has recorded, "in the present case the concerned person has not filed any genuine documents to show that he is the son of late Parna", and submits that the entire record of conciliation was produced before the Industrial Tribunal which contains several documents in support of the claim of Suraj Nath Bedia being the son of late Parna however, the Industrial Tribunal has not considered those documents and erroneously answered the reference in affirmative. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondentCCL supports the impugned award and submits that in view of the fact that the name of Suraj Nath Bedia does not appear in the service excerpts of the deceased employee, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that no genuine document has been produced in support of the claim that Suraj Nath Bedia is the son of late Parna. It is further submitted that the names of Mohan Bedia and Suraj Nath Bedia were subsequently written in the service excerpts which does not bear signature of either the official of respondentCCL or the deceased employee and thus, cannot be taken into consideration.;