NAMITA ALIAS NAMI BAURI Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAYDEV Bauri was an employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. He died young age at the age of 30 years on 12th February, 2004. His widow namita the present writ petitioner applied to the employer for necessary steps in order that she might be given an employment in the place of her deceased husband. It is not in dispute that the bipartite agreement provides for such employment to a dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, the Eastern Coalfields Limited was under an obligation to provide employment to the widow of the deceased. The deceased was survived by his parents, the widow and three minor children. The widow was at that point of time only 25 years old. Annexure "p-4" to the writ petition goes to establish that the necessary records including forms were filled up by her in august, 2004. Annexure "p-5" to the writ petition is a letter addressed by the Deputy CMC of the Eastern Coalfields Limited addressed to the Central hospital by which the hospital authorities were requested to conduct audiometry test as a measure of pre-employment medical examination. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. ultimately by a letter dated 30/31 March, 2007 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the records of the company did not reveal that the writ petitioner was the wife of the deceased Jaydev Bauri. However, on 22nd June, 2007 gratuity payable to the estate of the deceased was paid to the writ petitioner namita by a cheque dated 22nd June, 2007. The present writ petition was filed on 23rd July, 2007 claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities to give a suitable employment to the writ petitioner and further and/or other ancillary reliefs. The principal defence advanced in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court was as follows:-

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was taken up for hearing this Court found prima facie evidence to show that the writ petitioner was the widow of deceased Jaydeb. In that view of the matter to put the controversy at rest the order dated April 1st, 2009 was passed which reads as follows:-

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order General Manager of the company has interrogated the writ petitioner and her in-laws amongst others and the result of such interrogation by way of a report was furnished on April 15, 2009. The General Manager arrived at the following conclusion:-