Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 347 (CHH)

Asit Kumar Guria v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

2013-12-03

NAWAL KISHORE AGARWAL

body2013
ORDER Nawal Kishore Agarwal, J. 1. Heard. Out of several reliefs claimed by the petitioners, now, they are only praying for a direction to the respondents to provide employment to the dependent-son of petitioner No. 1, who, according to them, has become disabled owing to the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment. 2. The facts in nutshell as projected by the petitioners are that: on 29.06.2002, petitioner No. 1 sustained injuries resulting in loss of hearing to the extent of 95%. On reference, he was also treated in All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. However, he retired on 31.12.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. Before retirement, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondents for giving appointment to one of his dependents i.e. petitioner No. 2. However, no order has been passed by the respondents till now. 3. By referring to Clause 9.4.0 of the Coal Wage Agreement (Annexure P/10), Mr. Mukhopadhyaya submits that the respondents are bound to give employment to one of his dependents. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it is not correct to say that petitioner No. 1 has filed any representation before the respondent authorities claiming employment to one of his dependent-son in terms of Coal Wage Agreement (Annexure P/10). It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 had neither became permanently disabled on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment nor was declared as unfit at any point of time. He remained in service till attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, in terms of clause 9.4.0 of the Coal Wage Agreement, petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for employment to one of his dependent-son. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. Clause 9.4.0 of the Coal Wage Agreement reads as under: 9.4.0 Employment to one dependent, of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company Limited. 6. Clause 9.4.0 of the Coal Wage Agreement reads as under: 9.4.0 Employment to one dependent, of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company Limited. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. A joint committee will be constituted by the JBCCI for considering as to what constitutes general physical debility referred to hereinabove. This Committee will submits its report by 31.03.1996. In case of difference of opinion the matter will be referred to JBCCI which may appoint an Umpire to decide the issue. The decision of the Umpire shall be binding on the parties. (iii) The dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employees may be considered. In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of Clause 9.5.0. 7. A bare perusal of the above clause would reveal that under this clause, a worker, who is permanently disabled, can claim employment to one of his dependent "in his place", if nature of his permanent disability is such as resulting into loss of employment. It is further required to be certified by the Coal Company concerned. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner No. 1 worked till attaining the age of superannuation and was never declared by the respondents as unfit and therefore, on the face, he is not entitled to claim employment to one of his dependents under the above clause and the petition, on the face, appears to be sans merit. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondents. No order as to costs.