Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1259 (JHR)

Soshila Devi v. Regional Labour Commissioner

2009-09-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order This matter was taken up earlier on 19.7.2002, and on that date it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that Form 'H' was filed by the deceased employee for change in the name of the nominee, and it was stated that the supplementary' affidavit would be filed to show that the Form ‘H’ was filed by the deceased employee, and therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, two weeks' time was allowed to file supplementary affidavit in that regard, and in the meantime, relevant records from the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) was also called for, which has been received: 2. As it appears that no supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner as yet. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. According to the petitioner, she is said to be the second wife of one Chhotu Rajwar, who was an employee of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. After the death of the first wife of Chhotu Rajwar namely Badhinya Devi @ Koshila Devi, the petitioner, married with Chhotu Rajwar, and out of their wedlock, one son and four daughters were born. Further case of the petitioner is that her husband gave an application before the respondent for changing the name of the nominee in nomination form by bringing the name of the petitioner in place of the first wife. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner died on 6.8.1996, and thereafter, the petitioner as well as her major son Jai Ram Rajwar were paid their share in the C.M.P.F. and other legal dues. It is also stated that the petitioner was nominated as the wife of Chhotu Rajwar in the L.I.C. policy also. 5. In support of the fact that the petitioner is the wife of Chhotu Rajwar, two certificates issued from the Office of the District Magistrate, Balia and one issued by the Gram Pradhan of Chilkahar Panchayat in the District of Balia annexed as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition. 6. 5. In support of the fact that the petitioner is the wife of Chhotu Rajwar, two certificates issued from the Office of the District Magistrate, Balia and one issued by the Gram Pradhan of Chilkahar Panchayat in the District of Balia annexed as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that she applied before the respondent No.2 for payment of gratuity amount of her late husband, but the same has been refused by an order as contained in Annexure-8 by order dated 27.3.2001 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the appeal provided under the Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, but, as it appears that by Annexure-9 dated 22.11.2001 the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, and thereafter, the petitioner has challenged these two orders before this Court in the present writ petition. 7. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad as well as appellate authority have wrongly held that the deceased had not nominated the petitioner Soshila Devi in the Form 'F'. 8. As a matter of fact, the, name of the nominee in the Form 'F' was changed, and in place of the name of first wife Koshila Devi, the name of the petitioner was entered after making necessary corrections in Ute nomination Form. He further submitted that in view of the overwhelming document and evidence to show that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee, the authority concerned ought to have passed order in favour of the petitioner for payment of the amount of gratuity. 9. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent by referring the statement made in the counter affidavit as well as the nomination form i.e. Form 'F' filled up by the deceased employee which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, submitted that from perusal of Annexure-A, it would be clear that originally the name of Kaushila Devi was mentioned as wife of the deceased employee, but the same has been tampered, and there is some overwriting by which the name of Koshila Devi has been made as Sushila Devi. He further submits that in fact for change of the name of the nominee, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Form 'H' has been prescribed which has to be filled up by the employee, if he intends to change the name of his nominee. But, the deceased employee Chhotu Rajwar never submitted a filled up Form 'H' in order to change the name of nominee, and to substitute the name of the petitioner in place of the first wife. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the payment of the amount of gratuity. The said amount has rightly been paid to the son of the first wife whose name already appeared in the nomination form. 10. From the records which were called from the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner also, it does not appear that the petitioner's husband had made any such application in Form 'H' in order to change the name of the nominee. Even, no supplementary affidavit as directed by this Court on 19.7.2002 has been filed by the petitioner to show that the deceased employee had made any application in Form 'H' to change the name of the nominee. 11. Admittedly, the Payment of Gratuity Act, provides that in case the employee intends to change the name of the nominee, then, he has to submit Form 'H', and when no such application was filed by the deceased employee, and therefore, in my view, no case at all is made out for any interference by this Court The order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner as well as the Regional Labour Commissioner do not suffer with any infirmity, and accordingly, having find no merit, this application is dismissed.