HC Directs Bharat Coal To Pay Monetary Compensation To Widow Of Deceased Employee

The Court was hearing a Writ Application praying for a direction to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited to consider the case of the petitioner No.1(son of the deceased employee) for employment on compassionate grounds and also for monetary compensation for his mother who is petitioner No.2 (wife of deceased employee).

The bench of Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “…but the fact remains it was the respondents who did the mistake and we cannot forget that compassionate appointment in cases of other institution and in cases of mines area; same principle cannot be adopted keeping in view the fact that a beneficial provision is made out under a settlement and the state is expected to act reasonably.”

Advocate Ratnesh Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Anoop Kumar Mehta appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts–

The case involves two petitioners related to the deceased employee of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Petitioner No.1, is his son from his second wife, while Petitioner No.2 is his first wife, who had no children and consented to the second marriage. After the employee’s death both the deceased’s second wife and Petitioner No.2 applied for employment under National Coal Wage Agreement clause 9.3, second wife was denied employment due to her status as the second wife, and Petitioner No.2 was denied due to being over the age of 45. Petitioner No.2 then requested that their son be placed on the live roster for employment when he turned 18, as per NCWA clause 9.5.0 (III), which also provides monetary compensation to the female dependent during this period.

Also read: Jyoti Abrol joins Schindler India as Sr. VP – HR & Head HR

After perusing Rule 73 of Mines Rules 1955 from which it appears to the Court that it is the duty of Mines Welfare Officer to bring to the notice of the management the grievance of employee, individuals as well as collective with a view to securing their expeditious redressal, the Court observed, “it was obligatory on the part of respondents who acts as a Welfare Officer to bring to the notice of the management about the petitioner’s grievance which is not been done in the instant case.”

To support its view the Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto Vrs. CCL and other reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 and quoted, “It is, therefore, unfair on the part of the respondent to raise such a plea for the first time in its counter-affidavit to the writ petition. If he was underage, definitely, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to keep his name in the live roster. It was not done.”

The Court further relied on the decision in Gangia Devi Vrs. BCCL (L.P.A. No.657 of 2018) and quoted, “…there is no stipulation made therein that the wife of the deceased employee will only be entitled to get the monetary compensation if she files an application for getting such monetary compensation, and if entitlement has been made in the agreement which has got statutory force irrespective of the fact that the application has been submitted or not, the wife of the deceased employee would be entitled to get the monetary compensation.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the BCCL to extend employment to the petitioner No.1, who is admittedly now more than 18 years, and also to pay the monetary compensation to petitioner No.2.

Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.