ANJANA GORAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the award dated 12.1.06 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad whereby the reference has been answered in negative. The petitioner -deceased workman's wife had raised dispute as follows:

(2.) THE case of the concerned workman espoused by the sponsoring Union is that the concerned workman, deceased -husband of the petitioner was appointed by the Management at 6/7 Pits Colliery as Cat.I Mazdoor on 21.4.83. On 19.3.87 he was allotted duty from 8 A.M to 4 P.M. After completion of his duty he became seriously ill and was admitted to the Company's hospital at Jamadoba at 9. P.M, but he died at 2.20 P.M on 20.3.87. After his death, the petitioner submitted representation to the Management for her employment on compassionate ground in place of her husband. Her prayer was not considered by the Management, though similar prayer of others was considered. The said attitude being discriminatory and arbitrary, industrial dispute was raised, which led to the said reference.

(3.) BOTH the parties filed their written statements and led their evidences before the Tribunal. Learned Presiding Officer on thorough consideration of the evidences and materials on record came to the finding that the said Daso Gorai was earlier engaged as temporary Cat.I Mazdoor and he became permanent w.e.f. 21.4.83. He; died on 20.3.87. He had thus worked for the period of three years, 11 months and one clay after getting his letter of appointment. Prior to the said appointment he was only on temporary roll and his work was stopped by the Management for certain months due to dereliction of duties by him which was evident from Ext. W.S 3/1. The said Daso Gorai had thus not completed the required period of service for consideration of his wife's appointment on compassionate ground after his death. A provision has been made in Clause 3.6 of the Employment Procedures of the Company for providing employment to one dependant of the employee only in the cases in which a worker resigns or is discharged from services on medical ground. Learned Presiding Officer has concluded that since Dasa Gorai did not fulfil the said criteria, the application of his dependant cannot be considered under Clause 3.6 of the Employment Procedures of the Company. The learned Presiding Officer, thus, answered the dispute in negative.