IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 14506 of 2026 Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manik Das. For the Union of India : Mr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty, Mr. Avinash Kankani. Judgment reserved on : 10.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 10.07.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. Affidavit of service filed be kept with the record. 2. The writ application has been preferred challenging an impugned order dated 24th June, 2025, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, in Reference Case No. 18 of 2023, or in the alternative to set aside or quash the said impugned award dated 24th June, 2025 as well as the order of Reference dated 14.03.2023. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal allowed the issues in Reference, deciding the same in favour of the 2 respondent/workman by directing the petitioner herein to provide compassionate appointment to the respondent/workman within a specified period and until then compensation equivalent to monthly pay of an underground loader every month till the completion of the process. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/establishment has approached the High Court solely on the ground that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the workman and as the impugned order does not even discuss the issue of delay as raised by the petitioner in the written statement, the said order not being in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside. 5. The petitioner’s case is that the deceased employee in the present case expired on 24.05.2010. Private respondent no.5 for the first time made an application for employment on 17.02.2014 after more than three years. The petitioner/company accepted the said application and proceeded to process the prayer of the private respondent for compassionate appointment and immediately thereafter requested the private respondent no.5 to remove certain discrepancies and submit his claim for employment. 6. Vide the said letter dated 06/2010/05/2014, the respondent no.5 was directed to remove the following discrepancies: “1) The surname of Lt. Basdeo Bhuia and applicant differs. Please clarify. 3 2) The designation of L. Basdeo Bhuiya is wrongly mentioned. 3) In No-objection & Relationship certificate correct designation to be mentioned in respect of Lt. Basdeo Basdeo Bhuia. 4) Application for information of death is needed. 5) Dependency certificate is required. 6) Attestation Form 4 (four) copies in original is required. 7) Name of applicant in indemnity bond and affidavit wrongly mentioned.” 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of receiving such a letter, the respondent did not respond to the said letter. But it appears from the record, that Exb.W-5 is a letter received by the petitioner on 12.04.2015 written by the respondent no.5 stating as follows:- “With due respect I beg to inform you that I have received the letter no. ECL/B/Per/14/386 dt 10.5.14 and also received the letter no. ECL/B/per/14- 15/2014 dt 24.12.14, but very sorry to inform you that I have not been received the original 4 sets of file which I submitted before the colliery, which you mentioned as enclosures vide letter no. 386 dt 10.5.14. Kindly arrange to return me the employment file so that I can able to clarify the irregularities as 4 pointed out by you in your aforementioned letter. The zerox copy of application regarding submission of four sets of employment file is enclosing herewith for your ready reference. Please do the needful and take action at an early date. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- PO. Bansra PS Raniganj Dist Burdwan(WB)” 8. The said letter was in response to the letter dated 06/2010/05/2014. It appears that the said letter was received by the petitioner/company within a year from the date in Exb.W-4. The query of the respondent no.5 was also answered by the respondent 5 and submitted, and the authority on 12.04.2025 (Exb.W-6) responded as follows:- “1. There is no dispute in the surname as Bhuia and Bhuiya are the same as some where it has been written as Bhuia and Bhuiya. 2. Correct designation in respect of my deceased father already been mentioned. 3. It has also been corrected accordingly. 4. submitted. 5. Submitted. 5 6. Submitted. 7. There is no any difference in my name mentioned in affidavit.” 9. Again a request was made by the private respondent to process his application. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the dispute in the present case has been raised after a long delay and as such the claim of the respondent no.5 was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal. The Reference in the present case was made after completion of all formalities. The dispute was raised in the year 2021. 10. Learned Tribunal following the said findings passed the impugned award:- “I have considered the arguments advanced in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by parties. Undisputedly, Kartick Bhuia submitted his application and attestation form for the purpose of getting employment against the death of his father. From the Relationship certificate issued by the Member of Legislative Assembly (West Bengal) I find that Kartik Bhuia has been described as the son of Late Basdeo Bhuia. In the attestation form for employment, name of the dependent son has been spelt as Kartick Bhuia (Exhibit W-2). Management has filed the service record of Basdeo Bhuia wherefrom it appears that name of Kartick Bhuia has been spelt as Kartik Bhuiya. Management Witness in cross-examination admitted that name and surname of Kartick Bhuia was filled up by the employees of the management and neither by Basdeo Bhuia nor by Kartik Bhuiya himself. On the basis of such evidence, it is explicitly clear that neither the dependent son nor his father entered his name in the service record Therefore, dependent of the workman if otherwise eligible for employment as 6 the dependent son under the provision of clause 9.4.0 (iv) of NCWA, there is no justification on the part of the management of ECL in keeping the matter pending and frustrating the claim of dependent son without communicating anything to him. Discrepancies regarding name and surname would have been tenable if such name and surname was totally different. In the present case, Management of ECL has taken a very feeble plea that there was difference in spelling in name and surname of the dependent son, being fully aware that there can be difference in spelling in proper noun and for such reason management cannot delay the process of screening or holding medical examination of the dependent son. In the case of Smt. Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others [2017 Volume 6 West Bengal Law Reporter (Cal) 255], the special bench held that since NCWA is a settlement arrived at between the parties after protracted deliberations, the same is binding on the parties governed thereby in view of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no departure from the assurance in NCWA is warranted and that, various terms of the NCWA have to be read and the meaning of the words used herein gathered from the context. It therefore appears that a settlement under section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has binding effect on the parties thereto under section 18(3) of the Act of 1947. NCWA has made provisions for compassionate appointment for the dependents of the deceased employee. Nature of employment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based recruitment under the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is provided to the family of deceased in order to tide over financial penury. In the case under consideration, management of ECL has to consider that the difference in spelling in name and surname of the dependent son, due to entries in service record of his father and his application for employment cannot impediment in providing employment to a dependent son of deceased as per pr of NCWA. Management is 7 therefore directed to arrange for screening and medical examination of Kartick Bhuia for the purpose of considering his prayer for employment it is to be borne in mind that age of the dependent son has to be reckoned as on the date of submitting his application for employment. Under such facts and circumstances the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of ECL.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.05.2026 passed in FMA 1709 of 2025. On perusal of the said order relied upon, it appears that the Hon’ble Division Bench had considered the fact that the applicant had kept silent from 2009 to 2021 (13 years). It is also not clear as to whether the applicant has taken medical examination in 2009, as directed by the establishment in the said case. 12. This Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case decided in FMA 1709 of 2025 is not similar to the facts and circumstances in the present case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10514 of 2020 (Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon) wherein also this Court finds that the facts in the said case is not similar to the facts in the present case. 14. In paragraph 9, therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held has follows:- 8 “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 dependents of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created Immediately after 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. 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 9 not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 15. As such it appears that the respondent herein had responded to the letter dated 06/10-05/2014. A reply by the establishment was given on 12.04.2015. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that finally the respondent no.5 did not respond to the other letter dated 6/07- 05/15 wherein the petitioner/company informed the respondent no.5 as follows:- “Kindly refer to our earlier Letter of dtd. ECL/B/Per/14/386 dtd. 10.5.14 the reply submitted by you is not properly clarified and documents as stated in reply is not attached mainly affidavit of name & surname difference. You are once again requested to submit your reply point-wise at the earliest along with documentary evidence, if any. In case of any difficulty you are advised to attend this office at any time during working hour.” 17. It is the contention that there was no response to the said letter but the respondent no.5 raised an industrial dispute after almost 5 years. It appears from the letter dated 6/07/05/2015 that the said letter does not clarify as to why the documents and replies submitted by the respondent no.5 is not properly clarified. The 10 said order is a cryptic without any clarification point-wise. As to why the response of the respondent no.5 received on 12.04.2015, was not satisfactory has not even been prima facie mentioned. After the said letter, the company never reached out to the respondent no.5 but have now challenged the impugned order on the ground of delay. 18. Considering the judgement relied upon and the reasons, as provided by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in the impugned order, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal, the same being a well-reasoned order in accordance with law. 19. WPA 14506 of 2026 is dismissed. 20. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)