S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs: (i) For direction upon the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the provisions contained in Clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. (ii) For quashing the order dated 26/28.10.2002 passed by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, (A), Sirka whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. has been rejected on the ground of delay. Factual Matrix
(2.) Father of petitioner died in harness on 28.06.1999 and after the death of deceased father, the petitioner's mother informed the respondent company vide representation dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure 5 to the writ application) as a result of which name of his father was struck off from the Roll of the company w.e.f 29.06.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that after death of her husband petitioner's mother requested the respondents to keep the name of petitioner on live roster vide representation dated 05.07.1999 and further after attaining majority, she made a request to respondent CCL to allow her son to apply for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Para 9.5.0/9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. vide her letter dated 25.12.2001 (Annexure 7 to the writ application). In view of her request, the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 02.02.2002 in which the petitioner accordingly appeared before the Screening Committee but surprisingly the case of the petitioner was rejected on 26/28.10.2002 and hence the present writ application has been preferred challenging the order of rejection.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respondent is justified in view of the fact that N.C.W.A. is bipartite agreement and the respondent cannot turn their back to the provisions of N.C.W.A.VI. Learned counsel argues that the ground of rejection is wholly illegal and arbitrary as the period of limitation is applicable only in case of Clause 9.3.2 and in case of Clause 9.5.0(iii). He further submits that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to keep the name of petitioner in live roster particularly when the mother of the petitioner had requested for the same and had applied within time and it was soon after attaining the age of majority, a further request was made for consideration of her application for appointment. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Mohan Mahto v. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 144(SC) which reads as under: "The terms and conditions of service of the workman working in coal mines are inter alia governed by settlement known as National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA V). Indisputably, the said settlement, in terms of Sub section 3 of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on the parties. Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. V refers to appointment of dependents of the deceased employees working in the coal mines. Sub Clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 whereof reads as under: (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 15 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) and (ii) above." Learned counsel in order to strengthen his argument further relies on the Circular dated 24.01.2004 by B.C.CL. and submits that the Circular has been taken into account whereby Area Incharge/Manager of the concerned mines have been directed to immediately communicate the name of dependents of deceased employee to the Headquarter. In view of the aforesaid and specific provision under N.C.W.A. even though an application was submitted for en-roll-ment on the live roster, since no monitory compensation has been extended to the family of the petitioner, it was the duty of the respondent CCL to get the petitioner en-roll on live roster and on attaining majority according to suitability and eligibility of the petitioner, employment is to be offered by the respondent CCL. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Mohan Mahto (supra) and in view of the circular of BCCL which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and in view of the fact that petitioner's case is covered under Clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground.;