2025:JHHC:18004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 2743 of 2025 --------- Rahul Chouhan, aged about 32 years son of Late Jhunu Chouhan @ Jhunu Beldar, resident of Naya Shyam Bazar, Chhotanagari, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ......Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 2. Chief Manager (P) MP & R, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Koyla Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Koyla Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 4. Geneal Manager, B.C.C.L., P.O. and P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad. 5. The Area Manager (Personnel) Office of the General Manager, Kasras Area, B.C.C.L., P.O. and P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad. 6. The Personnel Manager, M/s B.C.C.L., Mudidih Colliery, Katras Area, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District Dhanbad. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Swapan Maji, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate --------- 02/Dated:-17.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 12.02.2013 passed in Ref. No.42 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has passed “No Disputes Award”. The petitioner has further prayed for mandamus upon the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the 2025:JHHC:18004 2 dependant of the deceased worker namely Late Sadasia Beldar who died in harness on 20.11.2001. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the record is that the grandfather of the petitioner namely Sadasia Beldar was working in the B.C.C.L. Mudidih (West) Colliery for several years. Due to mental illness, he was under treatment in C.I.P., Ranchi since 1988 and during his treatment he suddenly became traceless since 03.11.2001. In this regard Local Police Station was informed vide S.D.E. No. 196 dated 12.11.2001. Thereafter, he was noticed in West Mudidih colliery for one or two days and suddenly he died in harness on 20.11.2001 leaving behind his wife, one son, one daughter and mother. Thereafter, the petitioner's family approached the management for compassionate appointment of Jhunu Beldar, son of Late Sadasia Beldar under the provision of NCWA, but the Management did not provide him employment. 4. Thereafter, on the application of the concerned Union, Central Government has referred the following disputes to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for adjudication: “ (i) Whether the action of the management of Mudidih (W) Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependent employment to Sri Jhunu Beldar S/O Late Sadasia Beldar, Screening Mazdoor under the provision of NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the dependent son of the concerned workman entitled ? ” 5. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the aforesaid Reference made by the Central Government was registered as Reference Case No. 42 of 2008 by the learned Central Government Industrial 2025:JHHC:18004 3 Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad. In the said Reference Case No. 42 of 2008 on behalf of Workman/Union, written statement was filed on 18.12.2008 clearly mentioning the fact of the case and clearly stating that the dependant of the deceased workman is entitled for compassionate employment as per provision of N.C.W.A. (Annexure-1). The Management of the B.C.C.L. has also filed written statement denying the claim of the dependant of deceased workman/Union on the ground that on 24.08.2002 the concerned employee was dismissed from service on the ground of long absence. Therefore, the dependant of dismissed employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per N.C.W.A. (Annexure -2). 6. From the aforesaid Written Statement of the Management, it is clear that after the death of the concerned Employee on 20.11.2001, Management has dismissed him on 24.08.2002 (Annexure-3). The dependant son of the deceased workman namely Jhunu Beldar due to his mental illness became traceless since 09.10.2010, during pendency of the Reference Case. In this regard, a Paper publication was made on 15.12.2010 in Prabhat Khabar and also information was given to Officer in Charge, Jogta P.S. on 13.12.2010 vide Letter dated 13.12.2010 that the petitioner is son of said Jhunu Beldar and Grandson of the deceased workman. (Annexure-4 Series). 7. Thereafter, due to non-appearance of the parties, 2025:JHHC:18004 4 Award dated 12.02.2013 was passed in Ref. No. 42 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has passed “No Disputes Award” (Annexure -5). 8. From bare perusal of Award, it appears that after reference, both the parties filed their claim; however, thereafter neither the workman, nor the Union produced any witness and the case lingered since long and finally, the learned tribunal passed no dispute award. For brevity, the Award is quoted hereinbelow: “ AWARD. By Order No.L-20012/66/2008-IR (CM-I), dt.22/09/2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal: “Whether the action of the management of Mudidih (W) Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependent employment to Sri Jhunu Beldar S/O Late Sadasia Beldar, Screening Mazdoor under the provision of NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the dependent son of the concerned workman entitled?” After receipt of the reference, both parties filed their claim statements, documents and rejoinder. Thereafter the case is fixed for evidence. But neither the workman nor the Union produced any witness and the case lingered since long. In the premises of the case it is felt that there is no dispute between the parties. Hence no dispute award is passed. communicate to the Ministry. ” 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it is evident that the deceased employee, who was working in M/s. BCCL Mudidih (W) Colliery; due to mental illness, was under treatment in CIP Ranchi and he suddenly became traceless since 03.11.2001. However, he was noticed by some people, but finally he died on 20.11.2001 2025:JHHC:18004 5 leaving behind his wife, one son, one daughter and mother. Thereafter, the petitioner’s family approached the management for compassionate appointment of one Jhunu Beldar, who was son of the deceased employee and thereafter, with the help of Union, he referred the Industrial Dispute and a reference was made on the question, ‘whether the action of the management in not providing employment to Shree Jhunu Beldar is justified? And to what relief is the dependant son of the concerned workman is entitled?’ 10. The award was passed as “No Dispute Award” in the year 2013 and this writ application has been preferred in the year 2025. The original prayer of the petitioner is of compassionate appointment and the law is well settled that compassionate appointment is always given to the bereaved family for immediate relief. In the instant case, on the one hand, even before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not appear for long and forced with that situation, the learned Presiding Officer has passed “No Dispute Award.” Further, the said Award was passed on 12.02.2013 and the instant application has been filed challenging the Award on 24.03.2025. This chronology goes to show that there is no emergent need of the petitioner and in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others v. Parden Oraon1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Paras- 8 and 9 as under: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the 1 (2021) 16 SCC 384 2025:JHHC:18004 6 family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the respondent who are the dependants of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependants of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after the respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to this Petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-