2025:JHHC:29298 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 1881 of 2014 -- 1.Urmila Devi, D/O late Jagdish Dusadh. 2.Kamla Devi, D/O late Jagdish Dusadh. Both residents of Loyabad Coal Plant, Staff Colony Pandey Kalali, P.O. Basjore, P.S. Putki, District Dhanbad .... Petitioners. Versus 1. Union of India, through Sr. Manager (P) M.P.S.R., Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar. P.0. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 2. Project Officer, Madhuban, Coal Washery Plant, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Nadkharki, P.S. & District Dhanbad. 3. Area Personnel Manager, Block II Area, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Nawagarha, P.S. & District Dhanbad. 4. Smt. Dulari Devi, General Mazdoor, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhim Kanali Block No. 5, P.O. Nadkhurki, District Dhanbad. 5. Suraj Dusadh, son of Smt. Dulari Devi, General Mazdoor, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhim Kanali Block No. 5, P.O.Nadkhurki, District Dhanbad ......Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s. A.K.Das, Swati Shalini, Advocates -- 10/17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioners for the following reliefs: (A) For quashing/setting aside of dismissal dated 18.01.2014 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad (Annexure-11), whereby and whereunder the learned Labour Court was pleased to dismiss the application for payment of the compensation filed by the petitioners in W.C. Case No. 97 of 2011 declaring the case not maintainable as being out of jurisdiction without considering the factum probandum and probans involved in the case as such the order suffers from nullity. (B) For quashing the order of provisional appointment of the respondent no. 4 as contained in Reference No. G.M. BH: PD: PROV: App 2010/855 dated 14.09.2010 as the appointment is itself illegal and null and void ab-initio and without jurisdiction. 2025:JHHC:29298 2 (C) For quashing the order of appointment of the respondent no. 4 as contained in letter no. BCCL/PA-VI/3 (13) Ar. V/9/2012-4951-57 dated 23.05.2012 as this appointment is based on illegal provisional appointment by adopting fraudulent method and violating the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. (D) For a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to cancel the illegal appointment of the respondent no. 4 as she is said to be kept wife (concubine) of late Jagdish Dusadh during the life time of the first legally wedded wife, late Sunita Devi as such the respondent no. 4 is the 2nd wife of such void marriage not appointment. entitled for compassionate. (E) For a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner no.1, widow daughter of late Jagdish Dusadh, who served her ailing mother late Sunit Devi and father late Jagdish Dusadh till their death by remaining with them along with her sister, Kamala Devi legally entitled to succeed the estate of her father, Jagdish Dusadh. (F) For a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,70,720/- to the petitioners along with statutory interest along with penal interest for non-payment of the compensation amount as per terms of compromise entered into at the instance of the management of M/s B.C.C.L. 3. From record it appears that Late Jagdish Dusadh was permanent employee of Madhuban Coal washery of M/s B.C.C.L. having P. No. 01187806. On 11/9/2010 while he was on duty, one dozer hit the wall and bricks fell on his body and he succumbed to injuries on 11/09/2010. Applicant Urmila Devi and Kamala Devi (hereinafter called as 1st party) filed the compensation case being dependent and legal heir of the deceased. It has been alleged that Sunita Devi, mother of 1st party and alleged wife of the deceased died on 23/01/2010 i.e. much earlier than the deceased. Urmila Devi is widow and was living with her deceased father after death of her husband. It has also been alleged that Kamla Devi and her husband were also living with the deceased. Therefore, these two initial applicants have claimed the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 5,70,720/-. Later on, applicant No. 3 Smt. Dulari Devi and her son Suraj Dusadh (hereinafter called as 2nd party) filed an application to add them as party which was allowed on 11/01/2012 by the predecessor of this court. 2025:JHHC:29298 3 Consequently, the name of Smt. Dulari Devi and Suraj was added in the array of the party as applicant No.3. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that accepting the death of the deceased in the course of employment the opposite party has deposited the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 5,13,320/- vide cheque No. 205580 dated 28/11/2011. The said cheque was submitted in the court on 29/11/2011 in favour of EC Commissioner Dhanbad. No objection has been raised by the parties about the quantum of compensation however, both these parties being applicant have raised objection against each other since both the applicants are claiming their right to get the said compensation amount. 5. After going through the Award, it appears that the only issue which was before the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad was that “who is entitled to get compensation amount?” Learned Court after hearing both the parties at length, came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction in order to decide the lis before it. For brevity, Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Award are quoted hereunder: “8. I have had an opportunity to go through the record. Admittedly both the parties are claiming their right on the basis of marriage with the deceased. It is a case of applicant Ist party that only Sunita Devi is legally wedded wife and therefore being daughter of the deceased they are entitled to get the compensation amount. On the contrary it is a case of applicant IInd party that Dulari Devi is only legally wedded wife of the deceased and therefore Dulari Devi along with her son entitled to get the compensation amount. Both are discarded the claim of each other. Thus, the controversy relates with the determination of question that who is the legally wedded wife. And on this score suggestion of Ld. Counsel of O.P. has some weight. 9. So far jurisdiction of this court is concerns following sections are relevant to quote here:- Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:- 7. Labour Courts--(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. (2)........ (3)........ The Second Schedule MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURTS 1. The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders. 2. The application and interpretation of standing order: 2025:JHHC:29298 4 3. Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed, 4. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege 5. Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out, and 6. All matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule. Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 Jurisdiction. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation, and (b)..... Explanation- (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage: (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person: (c) to (g).......... (2)........ Thus, from reading of the aforesaid sections it is crystal clear that determination of legality of marriage not comes under the jurisdiction of Labour Court rather it comes under the purview of Family Court. And only after determination of this question regarding legality of marriage this court may pass any order regarding disbursement of the compensation amount. Consequently, the instant case not appears to be maintainable at this stage at least. 10. Hence, due to absence of jurisdiction the instant case is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that parties are at liberty to file a fresh case for disbursement of compensation amount after getting decree or order from the competent court regarding legality of the marriage and their matrimonial status, if so advised.” 6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since the facts are admitted; as such, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners; accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, the Petitioners may move before the appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievance. 7. As a result, this application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) September, 17, 2025 jk