LAWS(SC)-2000-5-58

BALBIR KAUR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

Decided On May 05, 2000
BALBIR KAUR Appellant
V/S
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question which falls for determination before this Court in these Civil Appeals pertain to the interpretation of Family Benefit Scheme as introduced in NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 and the consequences thereof on the existing welfare measure as contained in NJSC Agreement in 1983:Whereas the Orissa High Court in the judgment impugned held that by reason of introduction of Family Benefit Scheme in terms of NJSC Tripartite Agreement in 1989, question of compassionate appointment would not arise - the appellant herein contended that by reason of clause 8.14.1 in the 1989 Agreement; the requirement of compassionate appointment cannot possibly be given a go bye:It is an existing obligation and has been expressly saved. The appellant contended that having regard to constitutional obligation as regards Egalitarian society, the issue of compassionate appointment cannot and ought not to be trifled with - the question therefore does not seem to be so simple as suggested by Mr. Bhasme the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents and the issue undoubtedly is one of the 'live issues' to be decided by this Court, more so having regard to the constitutional mandate.

(2.) Incidentally be it noted that the appeal No. 11882 of 1996 (Smt. T. K. Meenakshi and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others) has been tagged on to the main appeal as argued before this Bench (CA No. 11881 of 1996; Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others) by reason of the consideration of the issue pertaining to the Family Benefit Scheme but the factual contexts are however at variance and it is in this perspective we deem it fit to advert to the factual matrix of both the matters briefly.

(3.) In Civil Appeal No. 11881 of 1996:(Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India and others) it appears that the appellants before this Court are the dependants of a deceased employee Hari Singh, who happened to be a technician working in the department of Captive Power Plant-II belonging to Steel Authority of India. The deceased employee was admitted to Ispat General Hospital on 4th August, 1992 and was treated for cancer till 24th September, 1992. At the same hospital the deceased employee however underwent surgery and subsequent thereto the latter was advised to undergo treatment at Meharbhai Tata Memorial Hospital and accordingly was admitted therein on 25th September, 1992 but was discharged on 10th November, 1992 when he was asked to report further on 7th December, 1992. The employee Hari Singh, however, expired on 22nd November, 1992.