1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WPA 5831 of 2024 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manik Das, Adv. For the Respondent No.4 & 5 : Ms. Monika Kalra, Adv. Mr. Shantam Gulati, Adv. Mr. Saswata Tripathi, Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. Indrajit Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Madhu Jana, Adv. Judgment reserved on : 18.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.09.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:- 1. The present writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Asansol in reference case no. 3 of 2026 along with order of reference being no. L-22012/96/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015. Vide the impugned award the learned Tribunal held as follows:- “In view of my aforesaid discussion the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL in denying employment to Birendra Kumar Nonia is not found justified. 2 The management of company is directed to consider the prayer for employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia, dependent son of the ex-employee and assess his age according to the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 within two (2) months from the date of Notification of the Award. The Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the dependent of the ex-employee. Hence, ORDERED that an Award be drawn up in favour of Birendra Kumar Nonia, dependent of the ex-employee workman. The Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL is directed to consider the prayer for employment of the dependent son of the ex-employee and assess his age according to the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 within two (2) months from the date of Notification of the Award., 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.” 2. The petitioner’s case is that on 15.10.1995, Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia, the father of the respondent No. 5, who was employed with Eastern Coalfields Limited as 'Security Guard', died while in service. On 13-01- 1996 Smt. Ahilya Devi, wife of Late Ramdeo Nonia and mother of the Respondent No. 5 applied for compassionate employment. On 20/23-02- 1998 ECL, the writ petitioner, issued a letter regretting claim for employment of Ahilya Devi and offered her Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) in lieu of employment as per the relevant National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). On 03.08.1998, ECL issued a letter to Ahilya Devi once again intimating her that her application for compassionate employment was regretted and offering MMCC in lieu of employment as per the relevant NCWA. On 27.07.2001 Ahilya Devi gave 3 a letter to ECL for providing employment to the respondent No. 5 as he had attained the age of 18 years. However, subsequent thereto, Ahilya Devi accepted MMCC and the same was paid to her till she attained the age of 60 years on 30th August, 2011. On 29.08.2011 Ahilya Devi, the mother of the Respondent No. 5, raised a purported industrial dispute through the respondent No. 4 for providing employment to the respondent No. 5 proceedings were initiated. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said award on the following ground (i) NCWA does not permit for providing both employment and MMCC, (ii) Delay and (iii) Overage. 4. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in:- i. APO 505 of 2017 (Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Kumari Kiran Singh & Ors.). The said judgment has been relied upon on their ground of delay. ii. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Dhiren Rawani (Civil Appeal No. 13923 of 2024). iii. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019)3 SCC 653. 5. Affidavits were filed by the parties. The said Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia, since deceased, passed away, while still in service, on 15th October, 1995, leaving behind his wife Ahilya Devi and his son, the respondent no. 5. Since the said Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia died in harness, his wife 4 duly made an application for compassionate employment for herself on 13th January, 1996. The application was processed and thereafter, by way of a letter dated 20th/23rd February, 1998, the petitioner wrongfully, unlawfully arbitrarily alleged her to be above 45 years of age. It was further alleged that the respondent no. 5 was 12 years of age at the time of death of the said Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia, as a result of which the respondent no. 5 was not kept in the live roster. It is submitted that such estimations as to the age of the respondent no. 5 and his mother was made without conducting any medical examination, in contravention to the Implementation Instruction No. 76. He further stated that in one document of the petitioner dated 21st August, 1991, annexed to the writ petition at pages 44 and 44A, the age of the said Ahilya Devi since deceased, was declared to be 34 years as on 01.04.1987 by the officers of the petitioner. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination could her age be anything more than 42 years and 6 months as on 15.10.1995 ie on the date of death of her husband Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia since deceased and 42 years and 9 months as on the date on which the first application for compassionate employment was made by 13.01.1996. 6. As the respondent no. 5 was declared to be 05 years as on 01.04.1987 by the officers of the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 was 13 yrs 6 months and four days old on 15.10.1995 as on the date of death of his father. The respondent no. 5 had attained the age of 16 years on20.02.1998 i.e. when his mother was informed that she could not be provided 5 employment as her age had crossed the upper limit of 45years. It is to be noted that on 20.02.1998 the said Ahilya Devi was 44 years and 10 months and 9 days old and eligible for employment in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA -V. The respondent no. 5 was nearly 16 yrs of age and eligible and entitled to be kept in the live roster of the petitioner. But the petitioner deliberately failed and/or neglected to do so. 7. The actions of the petitioner in willfully delaying the application of the said Ahilya Devi for a period of three years and deliberately declaring her to be more than 45 yrs of age as on 20.02.1998, and at the same time neglecting to keep the son/ respondent no. 5 in the live roster, was a well planned action to deprive both the respondent no. 5 and his mother Late Ahilya Devi of their respective rights. Furthermore, no medical examination and/or screening was conducted by the petitioner to ascertain her age. However, taking undue advantage of her being illiterate and uneducated, she was coerced to affix her signature on a document on the given understanding that by doing so she would get the receivable dues on account of her late husband's service. However, the said Ahilya Devi was thereafter verbally asked to accept monetary compensation which she initially refused. Simultaneously she was advised to make a fresh application for employment when her son, the respondent no. 5 who had attained the age of majority. She was made to understand that on doing so, her monetary compensation would be stopped and the respondent no. 5 would be given employment. Under 6 such false assurances and misrepresentation, the mother of the respondent no. 5 was made to accept the monthly compensation 8. The respondent no. 5 on 27th July, 2001, turned 19 years of age, made another application for his employment before the petitioner. When such application was made, the management of the petitioner convinced the said Ahilya Devi (since deceased)to affix her signature on a document, on a given understanding that the monetary compensation which was being received by her would be stopped and employment would be given to her son/ respondent no. 5, which she did on good faith. 9. By letter dated 21.08 2001, the petitioner advised the respondent no. 5 to appear before the screening committee but no medical examination was conducted. It is to be noted that a person is called for screening only when an application for employment is being considered and processed. The petitioner continued to pay monetary compensation to the said Late Ahilya Devi till she attained the age of 60 which she duly received. She later came to learn that the document, which she was then coerced to sign, stated that she would continue to receive monetary compensation, and consequently no employment was provided to the respondent no. 5. 10. The respondents have stated that the impugned award being in accordance with law requires no interference. 11. From the materials on record, it is evident that:- 7 i. From the service record in respect of (page 44) maintenance by the petitioner deceased Ramdeo Nonia @ Nunia, it appears that the age of the Ahilya Devi (wife) is given as 34 years in April, 1997 and son Birendra Kumar Nonia as 5 years. ii. In the said document itself in April, 1991, the age calculated is Ahilya Devi 38 years and Birendra Kumar Nonia 9 years. iii. Thus on the date of death of the workman on 15.10.1995 (a) Ahilya Devi (wife) was aged 42 years 6 months. (b) Birendra Kumar Nonia was aged 14 years 6 months. 12. In 1998 vide a letter dated 03.08.98 the petitioner rejected Ahilya Devi’s prayer for compassionate appointment stating that she had crossed 45 years as on the date of death of the employee, Ahilya Devi was 42 years old as per the petitioner’s record which was not disputed for 15 long years, till the death of the employee. 13. It now appears that the authority erroneously calculated the age as on date of rejection and not on the date of death, this has thus caused severe prejudice to Ahilya Devi. 14. But it is also true that Ahilya Devi did not challenge the rejection but accepted the monthly monetary compensation (MMCC) till the age of 60 years to raise a dispute. 15. The NCWA-V applicable provided either employment or MMCC and not both (clause 9 series). 8 16. The petitioner states that under the NCWA-V, provision for employment is governed by Clause 9.3.0. Para 9.3.1 provides that employment would be provided to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled and also who die while in service. Thus, according to Clause 9.3.1 provides for only one employment against death of permanent disablement of a worker. Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA-V provides that in so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Clause 9.5.0. Three sub-clauses under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA are required to be taken into consideration for adjudication of the present writ petition Firstly Clause 9.5.0. (ii), secondly Clause 9.5.0 (iii) and thirdly Clause 9.5.0 (iv). (i) Clause 9.5.0.(ii) provides that in case of death or permanent disablement due to causes 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 MMCC or employment and in case of the female dependant being above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to MMCC. This clause demonstrates that (i) MMCC is paid in lieu of employment, (ii) option for MMCC can be exercised only by a female dependant and (iii) option 9 for employment is open to a female dependant until she attains the age of 45 years. Thus, if once MMCC is accepted, no employment can be provided and/or claimed for as MMCC is in lieu of employment and Clause 9.3.1 read with Clause 9.3.2 makes it clear that only one employment can be provided against one death or permanent disablement. (ii) Clause 9.5.0(iii) provides that in case of death or permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment when he attains the age of 18 years and during the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation. For applicability of this clause, two conditions are required to be fulfilled (a) the male dependant is of the age of 15 years and above but below 18 years and (b) MMCC is paid and/or received until the time the male dependant is kept on live roster. The live roster comes to an end the moment the male dependant who has been kept on the live roster attains 10 the age of 18 years. In the present case, none of the conditions have been fulfilled as the respondent No. 5 was about the age of 13 years at the time of death of his father as appears from Paragraph 5 of the Award and report of the screening committee. The findings of the Screening Committee as to the age of the respondent No. 5 was not under challenge before the CGIT neither the CGIT had negated such findings as to the age of the respondent No. 5. 17. The son who was aged 5 years in April, 1987 was then aged a little more than 13 years and as per service records, definitely not 15 years, as required, to qualify, to remain in the live roster. 18. Thus a service record, which was never disputed by either parties till the death of the employee, holds good. Ahilya Devi was thus clearly eligible to receive compassionate appointment, which was erroneously rejected on wrong calculation, as the age appears to have been calculated, as in 1998. 19. Though the calculation was prima facie wrong, Ahilya Devi did not challenge the same at that stage and accepted the MMCC till she attained 60 years of age (maximum period). It is only after she completed 60 years, she has raised this dispute. 20. The tribunal without relying upon the service records, has at this belated stage accepted the contention of the private respondents, that their age should have been assessed as per the provisions of implementation 11 instruction no. 76 and directed the same, in spite of there being no materials to show, even prima facie that Birendra Nonia (son) was 15 years of age at the time of death of his father. 21. Service records being accepted for indefinite period of time, (herein 15 years) cannot be denied by either parties. 22. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Asansol, being erroneous, as being contrary to evidence on record and also the relevant provisions of law applicable, is thus perverse and is quashed and set aside. 23. WPA 5831 of 2024 is allowed. 24. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 26. 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.)