LILMUNI MANJHIAN Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-widow has come before this Court for a direction upon the respondents to grant her employment in terms of Scheme under clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement on account of the fact that her husband died on 31.10.2000 while in service of the respondent-BCCL. The petitioner thereafter filed her application on 14th May, 2001, vide Annexure 2. The petitioner thereafter was asked to apply in the prescribed form for compassionate appointment, vide Annexure-3 and she accordingly applied duly verified and attested alongwith identification certificate, vide Annexure-4. However, the respondents did not either reject or grant compassionate appointment. The petitioner-widow, therefore, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohan Mahto vs. CCL, 2007 4 JLJR 144 and submits that the respondents are bound by the National Coal Wage Agreement entered into with the employees and Union under Section 18 of the I.D. Act and cannot derogate from the terms and conditions of the agreement, whereby they are bound to give compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased workman, who died in harness. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been given the benefits of the life coverage scheme by the respondents amounting Rs. 30,000/- which means that the employer has treated the workman to be in service. It is further submitted that the deceased workman was never terminated and has continued in service till the date of his death.

(3.) The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is the stand of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner late Ramu Manjhi was in continuous absence from duty since 23.4.1988 till his death. For the aforesaid reason charge-sheet was issued against him in the year 1994 for having habitual absented from duty without sanction of the leave. The written explanation submitted by the workman was also not found to be satisfactory and thereafter he was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer and in spite of opportunity given, he failed to do so and neither did he report for resumption of his duty nor made any claim with regard to payment of any salary. The workman thereafter died on 31st October, 2000. It is further submitted that the widow of the deceased workman has been paid gratuity and other benefits amounting to Rs. 41,642/-.