Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 464 (JHR)

Samari Mahatawin v. Eastern Coalfields Limited

2015-04-14

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2015
Case Referred : MOHAN MAHTO vs. M/S CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD. & ORS. reported in 2007(4) J C R 146(SC) Judgment : Per D.N.Patel,J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment and order dated 9th April, 2014, vide which the learned Single Judge has dismissed W.P.(S) No. 2999 of 2013. Facts of the case 2. This appellant, who was an employee of the respondents, on being declared medically unfit, sought employment for her step-son Ashok Kumar Mahto under Clause-9.5.0-V of the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.), which has been denied by the respondents. Hence, this appellant preferred W.P.(S) No. 2999/2013, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th April, 2014 and this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against this order of the learned Single Judge. Submissions made on behalf of the appellant 3. National Coal Wage Agreement is binding upon the parties: Counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant, who was in the service of the respondents, has been declared medically unfit and therefore, as per Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement her step son, viz. Ashok Kumar Mahto should have been given appointment. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHAN MAHTO vs. M/S CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD. & ORS. reported in 2007(4) J C R 146(SC) and submitted that National Coal Wage Agreement are binding upon the parties and a statutory force. 4. Ashok Kr. Mahto is shown as the dependent in the service record of this appellant: It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that Ashok Kr. Mahto is the step son of this appellant. In the service record of the appellant also this fact has been mentioned. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence judgment and order dated 9th April, 2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2999 of 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions made on behalf of the respondents: 5. Biological parents and brother of Ashok Kr. Mahto are alive and also in the service of the respondents: Counsel for the respondents submitted that biological parents of Ashok Kr. Submissions made on behalf of the respondents: 5. Biological parents and brother of Ashok Kr. Mahto are alive and also in the service of the respondents: Counsel for the respondents submitted that biological parents of Ashok Kr. Mahto, for whom the compassionate appointment is being sought by this appellant, are already in the services of the respondents and these facts will be clear on perusal of paragraph 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge, which is quoted hereunder: “4. From the counter affidavit of the respondent, it is evident that the natural father of the said Ashok Kumar Mahto namely Sitaram Mahto is alive and is an employee at Chitra Colliery of S.P. Mines area under Eastern Coalfields Limited. The biological mother of the said person Ashok Kumar Mahto and second wife of Sitaram Mahto namely, Dubli Mahatwain @ Dubaliya Devi is also alive and she is also an employee under Eastern Coalfields Limited. The brother of Ashok Kumar Mahto namely, Jharilal Mahto is also an employee of the same colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Respondents have therefore stated that the said Ashok Kumar Mahto is not dependent upon the petitioner and at the same time, he is also not the biological son of the petitioner. They have also stated that the name of the said Ashok Kumar Mahto was introduced later on in the service record of the petitioner with the intention to seek employment upon the petitioner being declared medically unfit. Respondents have also inquired through police verification and came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have biological relationship with the said Ashok Kumar Mahto.” Moreover, brother of Ashok Kumar Mahto is also in the employment of the respondents. Thus, all the family members are employed and hence he can not get appointment merely because this appellant has been declared medically unfit to serve the respondents. 6. No documents in support of the contention that Ashok Kr. Mahto is the adopted son of the appellant: It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that no document is placed on record in support of the contention that Ashok Kr. Mahto is the adopted son of this appellant and hence also Ashok Kr. Mahto is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Mahto is the adopted son of this appellant and hence also Ashok Kr. Mahto is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Hence, this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this court. 7. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, we see no reason to entertain this letters patent appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- REASONS: (I) Biological parent and brother are also in the employment of the respondents:- It appears that this appellant, who is an employee of the respondents, is desperate for employment of one Ashok Kr. Mahto, who is alleged to be her step son, mainly on the ground that she has been declared medically unfit and has the name of Ashok Kumar Mahto as her dependent in the service record maintained by the respondents. Thus, as Ashok Kr. Mahto is the dependent of this appellant he should be given compassionate appointment under Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-V. This contention is not accepted by this court mainly for the following reasons: (a) It is an admitted fact that biological father of Ashok Kumar Mahto, viz. Sita Ram Mahto was in the employment of the respondents (now retired as submitted by counsel for the appellant). (b) Biological mother of Shri Ashok Kumar Mahto viz. Smt. Dubli Mahatwain @ Dubliya Devi is also in the employment of the respondents. Annexure 'H' to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 2999/2013 is the service excerpts of Smt. Dublia Mahatwain, who is the biological mother of Ashok Kumar Mahto, and as per this document, her year of birth is 1973 and therefore, she will superannuate in the year 2033 in natural course. (c) Brother of Shir Ashok Kumar Mahto viz. Jharilal Mahto is also in the employment of the respondents. (c) Brother of Shir Ashok Kumar Mahto viz. Jharilal Mahto is also in the employment of the respondents. Thus, it appears that except this Ashok Kumar Mahto, the entire family, i.e. mother, father as well as brother all are in the employment of the respondent and therefore, he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment because Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A. intends to provide security and employment to such dependent who are rendered destitute, i.e. without any source of sustenance in the event of bread earner either met with an accident or being rendered medically unfit or having died during course of employment. In the facts of the present case, biological parent and brother of Ashok Kumar Mahto are in the employment of the respondents and therefore, he can not be said to be a destitute in the circumstances that the appellant, being his step mother, has been declared medically unfit and her services have been terminated on the ground. (II) No document in support of the contention that Ashok Kumar Mahto is her adopted son: It is alleged by this appellant that Ashok Kumar Mahto is her adopted son. This argument is also not accepted by this court mainly for the reason that there is no document on record to support the contention. (III) Documents on record indicate that Ashok Kumar Mahto has been named as dependent in the service record of more than one person: On perusal of Annexure 'G' to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 2999 of 2013, it appears that this Ashok Kumar Mahto is shown as a dependent of his father Sita Ram Mahto, who was also an employee of the respondents. Thus, same person has been shown as dependent in the service record of more than one person. This service excerpt annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 2999 of 2013 makes it clear that Sita Ram Mahto, biological father of Ashok Kumar Mahto, who is in the service of the respondents has shown the name of this Ashok Kumar Mahto as his dependent. Annexure F to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P. (S) No. 2999 of 2013 also shows the name of Ashok Kumar Mahto as the dependent of Shri Sita Ram Mahto, who is the biological father of Ashok Kumar Mahto. Annexure F to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P. (S) No. 2999 of 2013 also shows the name of Ashok Kumar Mahto as the dependent of Shri Sita Ram Mahto, who is the biological father of Ashok Kumar Mahto. There are other documents also annexed to the counter affidavit, from which it becomes clear that Ashok Kumar Mahto is named as the dependent of his biological father Sita Ram Mahto, who has now retired from service as submitted by counsel for the appellant. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we are of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 2999 of 2013 vide order dated 9th April, 2014 and we see no reason to take any other view except what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.