SUMIT KUMAR MAHATO Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. The father of the petitioner was employed with the Bihar State Electricity Board as a casual worker. The power plant at Loyabad, Moonidih was handed over by the Bihar State Electricity Board to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for operating however, as some dispute with respect to tariff arose between the parties, the BCCL stopped operating the said power plant. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner and few others continued to work with BCCL. By order dated 08.9.1995 they were absorbed in the Company. The other remaining workmen raised an industrial dispute and an Award was passed directing BCCL to absorb them in service. The Award was challenged by BCCL before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3486 of 1992 (R). This court set -aside the Award by order dated 14.08.2002 however, the workers' Union resorted to protests and agitation and therefore, the matter was referred for arbitration before the sole Arbitrator - Hon'ble Justice V.N. Khare (Former Chief Justice of India). A settlement was arrived between the parties, in terms of which an Award was passed on 08.07.2009 wherein, it is indicated that all workmen who were ordered by the Tribunal to be absorbed, would be deemed to be regularised in service from the date of their joining the Western Jharia Area (W.J. Area). The father of the petitioner died on 01.06.2004 and the mother of the petitioner submitted an application on 15.07.2004 seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground however, by impugned order dated 28.04.2011/03.05.2011, the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, there is no provision for offering appointment on compassionate ground to the dependants of casual workers.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed taking a stand that the workmen referred to in the Award dated 08.07.2009 would be deemed to be regularised in service with effect from the date of their joining the Western Jharia Area (W.J. Area) provided they were getting wages in Category -I however, since, the father of the petitioner died on 01.06.2004 itself, the father of the petitioner would remain a casual worker. And, since, there is no provision in N.C.W.A. -III for providing employment to the dependants of the casual workers, the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the authority. Relevant paragraphs of the counter -affidavit are extracted below:

(3.) AS against the above, Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the respondent -BCCL, has submitted that the provision under the N.C.W.A. has been clarified by office order dated 02.07.1985 whereunder, it has been communicated that the dependants of casual/temporary/badli workers who died or became permanent disabled cannot claim the benefit of Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA -III. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter -affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -BCCL has submitted that, the fact that most of the employees mentioned in order dated 08.09.1995 are named in Award dated 08.07.2009 except, the father of the petitioner as he had died by that time, it would indicate that by order dated 08.09.1995, the father of the petitioner was not absorbed in the Company -BCCL.