PROJECT OFFICER Vs. SOVA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Judgment dtd. 18/2/2016, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014, whereby learned Court has allowed the said case filed by the respondent-Sova Devi @ Shobha Devi under of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D. Act") holding therein that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and as such, entitled for monetary compensation as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (for short "NCWA").

(3.) It was the case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court that her husband, late Bihari Saw was employed under the petitioner-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short "ECL"). However, he died in harness on 18/10/2009 and after her death, the respondent-Sova Devi, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of late Bihari Saw approached the petitioner-ECL for payment monetary compensation but when the petitioner failed to fulfill her demand, she filed a claim petition under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, before the learned Labour Court, which was registered as M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014 and notices were issued to the management of ECL. Upon receipt of the notice, the Project Officer, Kumardhubi Colliery of M/s. ECL appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the claim petition filed by the applicant is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The ECL further stated that Shobha Devi failed to produce the death certificate of 1st wife of late Bihari Saw and also had failed to produce her marriage certificate. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, by its Judgment dtd. 18/2/2016 allowed the said M. J. Case observing therein that: