Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 226 (CAL)

Suchismita Dasgupta v. Coal India Limited

2001-04-20

ALOKE CHAKRABARTI

body2001
JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.: The petitioner's husband an employee at Ningha Agent Office, Sreepur Area under Eastern Coalfields Limited as Technical Inspector died on December 10, 1999 while in service. The petitioner made an application to the concerned authority for appointment on compassionate ground whereupon the petitioner was asked to report to the Medical Officer, Sreepur area along with requisite papers. After the medical test, the petitioner was again asked to produce further papers which the petitioner duly complied with. Although, formalities have been duly complied but the appointment of the petitioner was kept withheld and, therefore, the present writ petition was filed when the representations were proved to be futile. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced argument contending that the objection raised by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition relying on section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as the company has been referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in case No. 50 10f 2000 is not tenable in law. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Bum Standard Company Ltd. vs. Me. Darmott, reported in 1997 (2) C.R.N. 148, Poiysha Industries Company Limited vs. Collector, Ghaziabad, reported in 1998 (79) F.L.R. 166, Modi Industries Limited vs. Additional Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad, reported in 1994 Lab. I.C. 1609, Swadeshi Cotton Mill Ltd. vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, reported in 2000 (84) F.L.R. 561 . It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that several employees have been given appointment on compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner has been kept withheld although in such case, law has been settled by the Supreme Court that such matters are not to be kept pending and reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Susma Gosain vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 . 2. Mr. Aloke Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents argued that under sub-section (3) of section 22 read with other sub-sections of said section, all proceedings are to remain suspended and the petitioner is not entitled to make such claim in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1985. 2. Mr. Aloke Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents argued that under sub-section (3) of section 22 read with other sub-sections of said section, all proceedings are to remain suspended and the petitioner is not entitled to make such claim in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1985. With regard to the judgment relied on by the petitioner, it is stated that the said judgments dealt with the payment of wages in case of the employees already employed and the present case is not governed by the law decided in those cases. Further it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner has received payments in lump sum and will also get amount monthly total of which will not be depriving the petitioner substantially in her earning even if the appointment is not made. In support of such contention, statements made in sub-paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) of paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition have been relied on. 3. After considering the aforesaid contentions, I find that the present proceeding has been initiated claiming compassionate appointment and, therefore, considering the language of section 22 of the said Act of 1985, it does not appear that there "is any bar in continuation of the present proceeding also. The law in this regard as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner makes the position clear. It is true that those cases related to claim for wages, but no substantial difference has been shown in respect of claim for wages and claim for compassionate appointment so far as the Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned. Therefore, I hold that the present proceeding is also maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to press for her claim. 4. With regard to the other contentions of the respondents that the petitioner is having an option of not insisting for the appointment by reason of the payments to be made to the petitioner in such case as stated in affidavit-in opposition, the petitioner will not suffer financial loss substantially, I find that when admittedly the petitioner has an option between the two choices and the petitioner has exercised her option in respect of such claim for compassionate appointment, there is no reasons to prevent the petitioner from making such claim. Moreover, when in any event the respondents are to pay the petitioner same amount whether the petitioner gets the employment or not, the appointment if given will not prejudice the respondents financially and therefore, the contention relating to sick industry and the law relating thereto also will not be any factor in deciding the present writ petition. 5. As such claims are to be decided expeditiously as decided in the case of Susma Gosain (supra), the present writ petition is allowed with direction upon the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order and to communicate such decision forthwith to the writ petitioner. Writ petition allowed with direction.