IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 735 of 2026

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Savosij Dasgupta,

Ms. Arunima Lala,

Mr. Pradipta Basu,

Ms. Madhumanti Chakraborty ,

Mr. Nilankan Banerjee.

For the Union of India : Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee,

Mr. Sachit Talukdar.

Judgment reserved on : 07.04.2026

Judgment delivered on : 30.04.2026

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an

award dated 28th May, 2025 passed by the Learned Central

Government Industrial Cum - Labour Court, Asansol in

Reference Case No. 44 of 2022 (Bhadu Bouri & Anr. -Vs-

Management of Lachipur Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Limited).

2. Vide the impugned award passed in reference Case No.

44 of 2022, the learned Tribunal held as follows:-

Page 2

“ORDERED

“that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest

against the management of Eastern Coalfields

Limited. Management of Lachipur Colliery under

Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed

to provide employment to Manoj Bouri, son of Late

Ganesh Bouri, the ex-employee of Eastern Coalfields

Limited on completing all procedures within three (3)

months from the date of communication of the Award.

Management shall also pay monetary compensation

to Bhadu Bouri, the wife of the deceased employee

according to the prevailing rate from 24.12.2000, till

employment is provided to Manoj Bouri or she

attained 60 years of age, whichever is earlier. Let an

award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let

copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of

India, New Delhi for information and Notification.”

3. The petitioner Eastern Coalfields Limited case in short is

that the petitioner no. 1 is a company within the meaning and

scope of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner no. 2 is

working as Chairman Cum Managing Director in th e petitioner

company.

4. One Ganesh Bouri being the husband and father

respectively of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was working as a

permanent employee of the Lachipur Colliery bearing U Man

Page 3

No. 58887 having designation of UG Loader and died in harness

on December 24, 2000.

5. Upon the death of the said employee, his widow being the

respondent No. 6 applied for compassionate appointment on

25th May, 2001. Thereafter unit level screening of the

Respondent No. 6 was held and screening committee forwarded

the case for further examination at Area Level. But the

Respondent No. 6 failed and/or neglected to submit the

relevant documents and the application for compassionate

appointment remained pending.

6. After 11 years, the respondent No. 6 withdrawing her

application for such appointment, requested compassionate

appointment for her son being the Respondent No. 7 herein.

Thereafter vide a letter bearing No. ECL/CMD/C -

6B/EMPL/ED-2875/18/641 dated December, 2018 , the

petitioner company rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 6.

7. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 then referred the matter

under relevant provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947

before the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Asansol. Both parties filed their respective

Written Statement when upon causing enquiry and taking oral

evidence, the Learned Labour Court passed the impugned

Page 4

Award directing the petitioner to grant compassionate

appointment and other reliefs.

8. Hence, the writ application. Parties have filed their

respective written notes and have argued in support of their

case by relying upon judgments in their favour.

9. The petitioners herein have argued that the employee in

the present case died in harness on 24.12.2000 and the

respondent no. 6 applied for employment on compas sionate

ground on 25.11.2001.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that that unit level

screening of the respondent no. 6 was held on 2nd June, 2001

and the screening committee had forwarded her case for further

examination at Area Level as per the prevailing norms.

However, the respondent no. 6 failed and/or neglected to

provide all the relevant documents required for fulfillment of

the formalities in order to process her application despite

reminders. As a result thereof, her appl ication for

employment remained pending.

11. It is stated by the petitioner that on 29th November, 2011

that is after 11 years, the respondent no. 6 issued a letter

withdrawing her prayer for appointment on compassionate

ground and requested employment for he r son being the

respondent no. 7.

Page 5

12. The petitioner further states that police under such

circumstances, screening committee, verification for

determining the relationship of the application with that of the

deceased and the medical examination, were conducted by the

petitioner company in the usual course of processing the said

application.

13. The petitioner then constituted a screening committee

and on 10th December, 2018 , a letter bearing no.

ECL/CMD/C-6B/EMPL/ED-2875/18/641 was issued by the

Competent Authority stating that the appointment on

compassionate ground as sought for by the respondent no. 7 is

rejected having been claimed after a long passage of time.

14. Hence, the reference. Admittedly the competent authority

rejected the prayer of respondent no. 7, after 7 longs years.

15. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in

support of their case:-

(i) (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 712 , State of West

Bengal Versus Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.

(ii) 2025 SCC Online SC 290 , Canara Bank Versus

Ajithkumar G.K.

16. The respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed written

notes and argued that as the petitioner did not process the

application of respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 having

Page 6

waited for a considerable period withdrew her prayer and

prayed for compassionate appointment of her son the

respondent no. 7.

17. Admittedly, the respondent no. 6 application was kept

pending and was not rejected. It is the case of the Union of

India that since the management of ECL did not finalize her

prayer for employment and Manoj Bouri, the minor son of the

deceased employee attained majority in the meantime and a

separate application was filed by Manoj Bouri on 29.11.2011

praying for his employment.

18. It is further stated that screening test of Manoj Bouri was

held on 12.01.2013 (Exhibit M-6) where the other dependents

of the deceased employee also appeared and expressed that

they have no objection, if employment is provided to Manoj

Bouri. Pre-employment medical examination of the dependent

son was held on 23.08.2013 and the IME report (Exhibit M -5)

reveals that the candidate was found fit for job. The IME Board

assessed the age of the son as 25 years to 30 years, which

implies that at the time of his father's death on 24.12.2000 the

age of the son was between 13 to 14 years. At the relevant time

NCWA-VI was applicable and it provided that if a dependent

son was above 12 years, his name would be maintained in the

Page 7

Live Roster of the company for his employment on attaining

majority.

19. It appears that the management in the internal letter

dated 10.12.2018 recorded the proposal for employment of

respondent no. 7 on the ground that X employee expired on

24.12.2000 and his service book is not available.

20. The Union of India further argues that that the cause of

action of the Industrial Dispute arose only after such

confidential letter dated 10.12.2018 was issued to the Sr.

Manager (Personnel), Kajora Area. It is further argued that the

management has deliberately delayed in finalizing the proposal

for employment though they have found Manoj Bouri fit for

employment in course of pre-employment medical examination.

21. Learned counsel for the Union of India finally argues that

Sub Clause 3 of clause 9.5.0 of NCWA VI notes that if no

employment is offered in case of death whether by way of mine

accident or otherwise or medical unfitness and the male

dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above, he

would be kept in live roster and would be provided employment

commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains

majority. It also states that during the period the male

dependant is on live roster, the female dependent will be

provided with monetary compensation. It would be pertinent

Page 8

to mention that none of the clauses provide any time limit for

applying or prescribe financial solvency of the family as a

disqualification.

22. The Union of India has reli ed upon the following

judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online Cal 7361 Sukumoni

Hembram versus Union of India & Ors. in the High Court of

Calcutta.

23. An SLP against the said judgment was dismissed vide an

order dated 14

th

October, 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5711,

Eastern Coalfield Limited and Ors. Vs Sukumoni Hembram

alias Sukumoni Mejhan and Anr.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

National Coal Wage Agreement (vi) wherein Clause 9.5.0

provides for employment/monetary compensation to female

dependant. Clause 9.3.0 provides for employment to

dependants.

25. It is the contention of the petitioner that Clause 9.3.2 and

Clause 9.5.0 provides for either employment or monetary

compensation to female dependant as the said Clause notes as

follows:-

“9.3.2. Employment to one dependant of the worker

who dies while in service

Page 9

In so far as female dependants are concerned, their

employment/payment of monetary compensation would be

governed by para 9.5.0.

9.5.0. Employment/Monetary compensation to female

dependant

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female

dependants of workmen who die while in service and who

are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above

would be regulated as under:

(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female

dependant would have the option to either accept the

monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/ - per month or

employment irrespective of her age.

(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to

cause other than mine accident. and medical unfitness

under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependant is below

the age of 45 years she will have the option either to

accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - per

month or employment.

In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she

will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to

employment.

Page 10

(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other

reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no

employment has been offered and the male dependant of

the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will

be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment

commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he

attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male

dependant is on live roster, the female dependant

will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at

paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from

1.1.2000.

(iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would

be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60

years.”

26. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that the female

dependant of the deceased workman in the present case is only

entitled to either employment or monetary compensation and

the tribunal was wrong in allowing monetary compensation for

the female dependant and employment on compassionate

ground.

27. The learned tribunal taking all these into

consideration, passed the impugned award on the following

findings:-

Page 11

(i) The management was fully aware about the death

of their employee and as per the provision of Clause 9.3.2

of NCWA-VI management was duty bound to provide

employment to one dependent of the worker, who died

while in service and also provide monetary compensation

to the female dependent of the deceased employee as per

provision of Clause 9.5.0.

(ii) In the paragraph no. 3 of Employment Screening

Report, it is stated that the name of Manoj Bouri was not

recorded as the dependent son of Ganesh Bouri in the

Service Record Excerpt and they did not find any

Service Record Excerpt of Ganesh Bouri, as such

police verification was made only where relationship

was confirmed as genuine. From Exhibit M-6, Screening

Report it is revealed that the management did not maintain

the Service Record of the employee for the purpose of

Screening, as such considerable delay was caused in

finding genuineness of relationship between the claimant

and the deceased employee for which the dependents are

not liable.

(iii) The report of Pre-employment Medical Examination

disclosed that the age of the candidate was between 25 to

30 years on the date of examination and he was found fit

Page 12

for examination. The report dated 23.08.2013 has been

produced as Exhibit M-5. The management thereafter

remained silent for five years after finding Manoj

Bouri fit for employment and issued an internal letter

on 10.12.2018, regretting the prayer for employment on

the ground that the application for employment was

submitted after 11 years from the date of death of his

father.

28. The Tribunal further held:-

“In my view the delay in processing the claim for

employment of the widow and thereafter the son

can be attributed to the negligence of management

company for not maintaining the Service Record of

the deceased employee, not disposing the prayer

for employment of the wife of the deceased

employee within reasonable time and not informing

the right of the minor son under NCWA who is

entitled to employment on attaining majority.”

29. Finally relying upon the following judgments , the

Tribunal held as follows:-

(i) Smt. Putul Rabidas Versus Eastern Coalfields

Limited and Ors. [2017 Volume 6 West Bengal Law

Reporter (Cal) 255].

Page 13

(ii) Sukumoni Hembram alias Sukumoni Mejhan Versus

The Union of India & Ors. [MAT 27 of 2024].

(iii) Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus anil Badyakar

and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009].

“15. In the instant case I find and hold that Manoj

Bouri was around 25 years and 10 months of age at

the time of submitting his application for employment in

the year 2011 and he was well within the stipulated

age for being considered for employment. The

management appears to have acted in an arbitrary

and illegal manner by not granting employment to the

dependent son. Evidently, the delay has been caused

due to the latches on the part of the management for

not acting promptly on the claim for employment by

Bhadu Bouri, widow of Late Ganesh Bouri. As the

application of the dependent son was admitted and

processed by holding screening and medical test, the

management is estopped from questioning delayed

submission of the claim for employment of the

dependent son.

16. In the instant case Manoj Bouri, the dependent son

of Late Ganesh Bouri is entitled to be considered for

employment as per provisions of NCWA, which is

strictly applicable to parties. Management is therefore

directed to provide employment to Manoj Bouri by

completing necessary procedures within 3 (three)

months from the date of communication of the Award.

Bhadu Bouri, the wife of the deceased employee shall

be entitled to monetary compensation as per Clause

9.5.0 of NCWA-VI from the date of death of her

Page 14

husband Ganesh Bouri i.e., 24.12.2000 till

employment is provided to her son or her attaining the

age of 60 years, whichever is earlier.”

30. Thus, considering the materials on record including the

evidence and the impugned award, this Court finds in view of

Clause 9.3.0 and 9.5 the NCWA (vi) the female dependant is

entitled to benefit of either employment or monetary

compensation.

31. In the present case, admittedly, the employment of the

female dependant was kept pending for many years without

considering the same and as such the female dependant

withdrew her claim for employment and prayed for monetary

compensation and instead of her, her son the respondent no. 7

prayed for employment on compassionate ground as per Clause

9 of the NCWA (vi) wherein a dependant member is entitled

to employment other than a female dependant who has

opted for monetary compensation.

32. The respondent no. 7 has been found to be eligible for

compassionate appointment in all respect, but after 7 long

years, the petitioners have rejected his prayer, in spite of the

respondent no. 7 meeting all requirements and or qualifying in

all respect, more so, when the management themselves have

been extremely negligent in their conduct, considering that,

they have misplaced the service book of the deceased employee.

Page 15

33. Considering all these facts this Court finds no reason to

interfere with the impugned order , the same being in

accordance with law.

34. The Writ application being WPA 735 of 2026 is thus

dismissed.

35. The petitioner herein is directed to comply with the

directions in the impugned award within one month from the

date of this order.

36. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be

given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all

formalities.

[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]