BASANTI SA Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being the wife of deceased-Suresh Sa, who was an employee of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter dtd. 30/5/2014 under Annexure-12 issued by opposite party no.3 rejecting her claim of dependant employment as per clause-9.3.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement-IX (NCWA-IX).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa was appointed as Driver (T) on 1/1/1986 in the Belpahar Open Cast Mines of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL). Subsequently, he was promoted to category-II and confirmed in category-I on 1/1/1987. Thereafter, he was posted in IB Vally Area and continued as such till he was posed at Lakhanpur area as Dumper Operator. He was sent for refresher course of Training Institute, IB Vally, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited during October, 1999. While continuing in service at Lakhanpur Open Cast Project, he died in a road accident on 20/1/2007, at the time of returning home, leaving behind his widow Basanti Sa (petitioner), one daughter and two sons. The petitioner, upon death of her husband, on 12/3/2007 applied for the death benefit of her Late husband enclosing all documents which were not provided.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa was appointed in MCL and discharged his duty from 1/1/1986 till his death, i.e., 20/1/2007. It is also contended that the petitioner has been allowed to receive the benefit of the deceased employee as the legal representative of land oustee, even though there were three complaints lodged by Late Gangarath Sa, his wife Balamati Sa and another person claiming to be Suresh Sa. Even though complaints were lodged in the year 1987, 2000 and on 23/5/2006 during life time of Suresh Sa, enquiry was not conducted to find out the correctness of allegations made against the deceased employee. It is further contended that the petitioner, being the legal representative of Suresh Sa, has been paid gratuity amount and she has been receiving pension of Rs.1800.00 per month, besides other benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law. It is further contended that even though the Director, Personnel, MCL, vide letter dtd. 26/3/2006, advised the General Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action, the same was not done during life time of the petitioner's husband, and much thereafter the enquiry was conducted in 2012, when the petitioner had already submitted application for compassionate appointment in 2007, and at no point of time the petitioner has ever been communicated with regard to the allegation made against genuineness of continuance of service of her husband. After the death of her husband, the authority caused enquiry behind the back of the deceased employee and ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, vide impugned letter dtd. 30/5/2014, in compliance of the order dtd. 5/8/2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14541 of 2013, without application of mind and without compliance of the provisions of law, including the principle of natural justice. It is further contended that under the NCWA-IX, the petitioner is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground and that cannot be rejected on a flimsy ground after a long lapse of time, as there is no dispute that the petitioner's husband was not working as an employee under MCL. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Smt. Subhadra vs. Ministry of Coal, AIR 2018 SC 783 and Bhabani Shankar Pandit vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa, 2018 (I) ILR-CUT-316.