1 2025:CGHC:34728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1010 of 2023 Abhishek Das S/o Late Anup Kumar Das Aged About 22 Years R/o B-4, Phase-1, Rajiv Lochan Awasiya Parisar, Kachna, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager (Personnel/ Man Power) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Area General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, P.O. South Jhagrakhand, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Area Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, P.O. South Jhagrakhand, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.25 11:08:25 +0530 2 “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no.4. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant employment to the petitioner being dependant of his father as per the Social Security Scheme as envisaged under the National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as per the National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner's valuable right is unnecessarily being denied by the respondent company. 10.6. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. The petitioner’s father namely, Shri Anup Kumar Das was posted as Accounts Clerk, Area Office Unit and while working in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (‘SECL’), died on 03.01.2022. The petitioner being son, made an application for appointment as per the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI/VIII for dependent employment which was 3 ultimately rejected on 23.09.2022 on the ground that since the petitioner’s mother is also a Government Servant, the petitioner is not entitled for dependent employment. 4. Now, the petitioner has filed writ petition seeking direction for consideration of his case for dependent employment in terms of the order passed by this Court in the matter of Avinash Saloman v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 388, which has been affirmed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.20/2016 (M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Avinash Saloman), decided on 11.10.2023, against which, Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Supreme Court by the SECL which has also been dismissed in SLP (C) No.008608- 008609/2024 (Diary No.12929/2024), disposed of on 10.04.2024. As such, the petitioner is entitled for dependent employment. 5. Return has been filed by the respondents/SECL opposing the writ petition and stating inter alia that the petitioner’s mother is already in Government employment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for dependent employment. 6. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Avinash Saloman (supra) affirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeal against which the SLP preferred on behalf of the SECL has not been entertained by the Supreme Court, as such, the SECL be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for dependent employment. 4 7. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL submits that since the petitioner’s mother is already a Government employee, the petitioner is not entitled for dependent employment. He has placed reliance in the matter passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.206/2025 (Ramandeep Singh Maan v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) decided on 25.03.2025 to buttress his submissions. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father, who was working in the SECL, was died in harness on 03.01.2022. Clause 9.3.1 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI provides that employment would be provided to one dependent of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. Further, clause 9.4.0 also provides for employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. National Coal Wage Agreement-VI has been continued by National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII dated 24.01.2009 which states that clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 & 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI will be operative in NCWA-VIII till a revised scheme is jointly prepared keeping in view the various verdicts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the earliest. As such, NCWA-VI was applicable on the date on which the petitioner’s father was died, however, the petitioner’s case was not considered leading to filing of this writ petition. 5 10. In Avinash Saloman (supra), following question was framed for consideration in paragraph 1 of the order, however, it has been divided into two questions for the sake of convenience in paragraph 9 of the said order, which state as under: - “1. … whether the respondent/SECL being governed by National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), which is binding under Section 18(3) of the ID Act, can decline to grant “dependant employment” to the petitioner despite provision in National Coal Wage Agreement solely on the ground that one of the member of dependant family is on employment?” “9. The question formulated in opening paragraph of this order can be sub-divided in following two questions for the sake of convenience:- (i) Whether the National Coal Wage Agreement entered into between the parties is a “settlement” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act and binding under Section 18(3) of the said Act? (ii) Whether denial by the respondent/SECL to grant “dependant” employment” to the petitioner is justified in the facts of the case?” 6 Question No.9(i) formulated in Avinash Saloman (supra) was answered in paragraph 21 of the order, which states as under: - “21. Thus, it is quite vivid that the provision of dependant employment in National Coal Wage Agreement is not a concession but arises from the contractual liability of the respondent/SECL flowing from settlement entered by and between the management and employee having regard to the provision contained in Section 18 (3) of the ID Act. It is an agreement entered into between the coal companies and representative of the employees in the shape of the NCWA and is a “settlement” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act and it creates right in favour of the dependant of the deceased to get dependant employment as per provisions of the NCWA and as such, it is a contractual liability of the respondent/SECL having force in Law. The question No.1 is answered accordingly.” Similarly, question No.9(ii) was answered in paragraphs 27, 28, 30 & 31 of the order, which state as under: - “27. The respondent/SECL is subsidiary company of the Coal India, a public sector undertaking and undoubtedly, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has also been conferred with the status of “Miniratna Company” by the Government of India and therefore, it is obliged to act fairly, reasonably and 7 bonafidely and should take a plea, which is legally available to them. The plea taken in this writ petition is an unholy plea as observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohan Mahto (supra), but such a plea has been taken only to deny the claim the claim of the petitioner and as such, denial on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for dependant employment in terms of Section 9.3.3 of the NCWA is per-se illegal and arbitrary. 28. Accordingly, it is held that action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for dependant employment provided under Section 9.3.0 of the NCWA, which is binding settlement and which nowhere excludes the dependant employment on the ground of one of the family member of dependant employee on employment is ex-facie illegal and plainly arbitrary. 30. The petitioner's father died on 24.6.2007 and his case was not considered appropriately and properly by the respondents till this date for dependant employment despite express provision in NCWA in this regard and plea taken is found to be unsustainable. The respondent/SECL has failed to act fairly, reasonably and bonafidely towards the dependant of the deceased, who is struggling to meet both ends since 2007. Thus, while expressing my 8 disapproval of the way in which the SECL Authorities have dealt with the claim of the petitioner relating to dependant employment and took five years time in taking a final decision, it would be appropriate to impose cost quantified at Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent/SECL, which will be paid to the petitioner within four weeks. 31. As a fallout and in consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent/SECL and its authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of dependant employment in accordance with the provisions contained in NCWA, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father, on its own merit, within forty-five days from today.” 11. Against the order passed by the writ court in Avinash Saloman (supra), the SECL has preferred writ appeal before this Court and writ appeal was dismissed by the order of the Division Bench passed on 11.10.2023 in which the order passed by the Single Bench has been affirmed against which review petition has been filed which has also been dismissed on 27.02.2024 and thereafter, the matter was taken up in SLP by the SECL before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 10.04.2024 by passing following order: - “2. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by 9 the High Court. The special leave petition(s) are, accordingly, dismissed. 3. However, six weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner(s) for complying with the order of the High Court.” 12. As such, the order of this Court in Avinash Saloman (supra) has become final in which it has clearly been held that an agreement entered into between the coal companies and representative of the employees in the shape of the NCWA is a “settlement” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act and it creates right in favour of the dependent of the deceased to get dependent employment as per the provisions of the NCWA and as such, it is a contractual liability of the respondent/SECL having force of law. It has further been held that action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for dependent employment provided under clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, which is binding settlement and which nowhere excludes dependent employment on the ground of one of the family members of the deceased employee on employment, is ex facie illegal and plainly arbitrary. It has also been held that SECL being a Governmental company is obliged to act fairly, reasonably and bona fidely and should take plea which is legally available to it. 13. In the instant case, rejection / non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his mother is already in employment is also ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 10 14. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in the NCWA prevalent at the time of death of the petitioner’s father, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh