Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1227 (JHR)

Suresh Modi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2003-09-30

TAPEN SEN

body2003
Order In this Writ Application, the Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed under Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and accordingly prays for a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents and particularly the Chief General Manager, Katras Area to provide employment to him. The Petitioner further prays for a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the death of his son who died in a road accident. 2. The facts of this case are that the son of the Petitioner, namely, Awadhesh Kumar Modi met with an accident by a dumper belonging to the Ram Kanali Colliery of Angarpatra under M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The further case of the Petitioner is that he died on the spot where after there was an uproar amongst the villagers and a demand, was made for compensation and employment to the father of the deceased boy, but upon intervention of a political leader, the situation was brought under control. An FIR was lodged in relation to the accident vide Katras (Angarpatra) P.S. Case No. 325 of 1995 (Annexure 1). A death certificate was issued by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Angarpatra Police Station vide Annexure 2. The Petitioner has also brought on record a photocopy of the Postmortem Report vide Annexure 3. 3. According to the Petitioner, on account of the aforementioned accident, a volatile situation prevailed amongst the villagers, but on the same day, i.e., 18.9.1995, a political leader intervened and upon his intervention, the Respondent ,No.5, i.e., the Chief General Manager, Katras Area agreed to pay compensation as well as employment to the father of the deceased. So far as the compensation part was concerned, it was agreed that the matter shall be referred to the competent authority for sympathetic consideration. 4. Inspite of the aforementioned assurance given by the Chief General Manager on 18.9.1995 vide Annexure 4, the Petitioner has made a grievance that till today no action has been taken although a number of representations (Annexure 5) have been sent. 5. The Petitioner has referred to the element of assurance given to the villagers vide Annexure 4 at paragraph 15 and has further stated that in view of the fact that the dumper belonged to B.C.C.L., equity demands that the Petitioner should be provided with service as also with compensation. 6. 5. The Petitioner has referred to the element of assurance given to the villagers vide Annexure 4 at paragraph 15 and has further stated that in view of the fact that the dumper belonged to B.C.C.L., equity demands that the Petitioner should be provided with service as also with compensation. 6. A Counter Affidavit in the instant case has been filed by the Respondents and they have stated that it is a fact that Awadhesh Kumar Modi died in the accident. They have further stated that in order to avoid serious law and order problem which arose as a result of the accident the General Manager of the Area concerned gave an assurance in the manner described in Annexure 4. 7. Upon perusal of the pleadings made in the Writ Application, it is evident that Awadhesh was not in the employment of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, but he was an unfortunate non-employee who met with the accident and died on the spot. If he had been in employment, then perhaps under the rules in relation to compassionate appointment, the Petitioner could have claimed appointment, but that is not the case in the instant Writ Application. Additionally, it is further evident that the assurance that was given vide letter dated 18.9.1995 addressed to the Petitioner was not an assurance given out of free will and without any coercion. On the contrary and as has been pleaded in the Counter Affidavit, it was virtually extracted forcibly by the villagers who took advantage of the unfortunate incident. To that extent therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel can never be made applicable in such a case where a promise has been obtained by mob force which is bereft of all reasons. If for every accident, employment has to be provided, then that is a most unreasonable and illegal expectation. 8. Moreover, the Petitioner appears to have suppressed a vitally important fact and that is that for the same occurrence the wife of the Petitioner had filed a Motor Accident Claims Case being Title (MV) Suit NO.9 of 1996 before the M.A.C.T. Dhanbad wherein she had claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In that case, the B.C.C.L and some of its officials had been impleaded along with the Insurance Company. The claim was finally decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In that case, the B.C.C.L and some of its officials had been impleaded along with the Insurance Company. The claim was finally decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand) together with costs where after the matter was finally disposed off before the Lok Adalat. For an accident of such a nature, the Motor Vehicles Act is a self contained Code and it was made operational in relation to the accident vis-a-vis the deceased. There is no provision under the National Coal Wage Agreement that even for a non employee, the management will be obliged to provide employment in case of an accident leading to the death of his/her dependant. To that extent therefore, the so called assurance given by the Chief General Manager, Katras Area vide letter dated 18.9.1995 as contained in Annexure 4 cannot be said to bind the Respondent authorities as it is not as per the Rules/ Policy of the Company. For the reasons stated therefore, this Court holds that there is absolutely no merit in this Writ Application. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs.