SHOBHA PARIDA Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kampo - husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, while working as SECL servant, died in harness on 14/4/2021. Petitioner No.1, being his wife, applied for dependent employment for her son Krishna Chandra Parida in terms of clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement on 12/5/2021 which was rejected on 16/5/2021 holding him over-aged. Thereafter, again, petitioner No.1 applied on 19/5/2021 that now dependent employment be given to her married daughter i.e. petitioner No.2 herein which was not considered and granted leading to filing of this writ petition in which return has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that scrutiny of the application of petitioner No.1 for dependent employment of petitioner No.2 is still under consideration / process and appropriate decision will be taken after examining the dependency part as to whether petitioner No.2 being a married daughter was wholly dependent upon the earning of the deceased employee at the time of his death as per the provisions of the NCWA. The respondents pursuant to order dated 5- 1-2022 passed by this Court have also filed an affidavit stating therein that letter dtd. 10/6/2021 has been issued to petitioner No.1 advising her to submit the certificate of Sub-Divisional Officer or Tahsildar, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya to the effect that her daughter (petitioner No.2 herein) and her daughter's husband were wholly dependent upon deceased Kampo and they have no independent source of income to earn their livelihood, so that the application for dependent employment may be considered which has been reiterated in memo dtd. 13/7/2021. No further affidavit has been filed by the parties.

(2.) Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that petitioner No.2 being married daughter of deceased SECL servant Late Kampo is entitled for dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement as held by this Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey v. Coal India Ltd and others,W.P.(S)No.4994/2015, decided on 15/3/2016 affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Coal India Ltd and others vs. Smt. Asha Pandey,WANo.246/2016, decided on 3/9/2019 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and another vs. Asha Pandey and another,Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.238/2020, decided on 31/1/2020. As such, the issue whether married daughter is included in clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA stands settled and thus, married daughter is entitled for dependent employment, she would be the direct dependent and she cannot be said to be indirect dependent, and only in absence of married daughter and son, indirect dependents who would be brother, widowed daughter-in-law and son-in-law residing with the deceased employee Kampo and almost wholly dependent on the family of the deceased may be considered for dependent employment. If petitioner No.2 is married daughter, she will be the direct dependent in accordance with clause 9.3.1 read with 9.3.3 of the NCWA and, therefore, no enquiry is necessary qua, whether petitioner No.2 is residing with the deceased SECL servant being married daughter and whether she was wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased Kampo is required. Consequently, non-grant of dependent employment by the SECL is totally unreasonable and smacks nonapplication of mind and it is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Mamni Pradhan v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others,W.P.(S)No.4712/2018, decided on 25/1/2022 to buttress his submission and would submit that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and grant dependent employment in accordance with clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA.

(3.) Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the SECL / respondents, would submit that though petitioner No.2 is married daughter, but in terms of clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA, she would be indirect dependent and therefore enquiry as to whether petitioner No.2 was residing with deceased Kampo and whether she was wholly dependent on the earnings of Kampo is absolutely necessary and unless enquiry is made, petitioner No.2 is not entitled for dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA and that is the reason why the SECL authorities have issued notices on 10/6/2021 and 13/7/2021 to petitioner No.1 directing her to submit necessary certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer to consider her case for dependent employment. Therefore, the petition is premature as the petitioners have not submitted the said certificate and is liable to be dismissed.