EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LODHNA COLLIERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI N.G. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the reference dated 1st March 2000 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in the following language in favour of workman by the impugned award dated 27 December 2009 in Reference No. 143/2000: -

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case relevant for consideration of the issues involved interalia are as follows : - Rani Rajwarin, mother of Respondent No. 2 was wagon loader in Lodhna Colliery who expired on 10th of June 1985. At the time of her death, Respondent No. 2 his dependent son was 14 years of age. Her husband Arjun Rajwar was also in employment as a trammer in Lodhna Colliery. It is also undisputed that the application for compassionate appointment was first made in the year 1991 after about two years of the majority of Respondent No. 2, dependent son of the deceased. It is also not in question that under the N.C.W.A. II invogue at the time of death of the workman in 1985, there was no concept of keeping the dependent minor child in live roster. The concept of keeping the dependent minor son of an employee dying in harness on live roster came into vogue under the N.C.W.A. V w.e.f. 01.07. 1991. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid undisputed state of facts, the learned tribunal has erroneously held the demand of the Union justified and directed to give employment to the dependent son Jadu Nath Rajwar of the deceased.

(3.) The same has been challenged by the petitioner management on the ground that the claim of the compassionate appointment made after six years of the death when dependent son was aged 14 years at the time of death, could not be entertained in terms of settlement arrived at between the management and the Labour Union under the National Coal Wages Agreement invogue from time to time. There being no concept of keeping the dependent minor son of the deceased on live roster till he attains majority, under N.C.W.A. II the Respondent No. 2 Jadu Nath Rajwar could not have been given employment on compassionate ground on attaining his majority. The claim of the compassionate appointment has therefore wrongly been upheld by the learned Tribunal. He has erred in law and in facts in rendering the award in his favour.