EASTERN COALFIELD LIMITED AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Court
Calcutta High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
WPA 15853 of 2026
Eastern Coalfield Limited & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayan Poddar,
Mr. Soham Datta,
Ms. Gargi Mukhopadhyay,
Ms. Anjali Shaw.

For the Union of India : Mr. Tushar Kanti Har,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Narendra Prasad Gupta.

Judgment reserved on : 31.07.2026
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2026


SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an
award dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned CGIT at Asansol.
2. Vide the impugned award the learned tribunal directed as
follows:-
“Ordered
That the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part in
favour of dependents of Binod Muchi. Jitendra
Muchi, the son-in-law is not entitled to any



Page 2



compassionate employment in existence of any
other direct dependents. Management of Eastern
Coalfields Limited is directed to consider the name
of any nominated direct dependent of Late Binod
Muchi for providing employment on attaining
majority. Sakunma Muchi, the widow shall be
paid Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation at the
prevailing rate as per provision under Clause
9.5.0 (iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement from
the date of death of Binod Muchi till
employment is provided to any of the
dependent or till she attains 60 (sixty) years,
whichever is earlier. Let an award be drawn up
in light of my above findings. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
Sd/-
Presiding Officer,
CGIT- cum-L.C., Asansol”

3. The award was passed on deciding the following issues:-
i.
Whether the action of the Petitioner Company in
not providing compassionate appointment to Sri



Page 3



Jitendra Muchi, son-in-law of the deceased
employee, was justified,
ii. Whether non-payment of monetary
compensation to Smt. Sakunma Muchi was
justified, and
iii. The relief, if any, to which the said son-in-law
and widow were entitled.
4. The petitioner has preferred the writ application being aggrieved
that:-
(a) No dispute concerning the entitlement of any
daughter, that child or other dependant of Late
Binod Muchi was referred for adjudication by the
Appropriate Government. For that neither the
daughters of Late Binod Muchi nor any other
dependant claimed compassionate appointment
before the Learned Tribunal and no issue
regarding their entitlement arose for
determination in the reference to the proceedings.
(b) That the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that
Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-VI, as continued under
NCWA-VIII, applies only where a male dependent
of the deceased employee is aged 12 years or
above but below 18 years at the time of death of



Page 4



the deceased employee and is kept on a live
roster till he attains majority.
(c) The Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
after recording à finding that Sri Jitendra Muchi,
the son-in-law of the deceased employee, was
not entitled to compassionate appointment, the
claim for employment stood exhausted and no
further direction regarding compassionate
appointment could legally have been issued.
Under the scheme contained in Clauses 9.3.0
and 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement,
compassionate employment can be granted only
in the contingencies expressly contemplated
therein and not otherwise.
5. In course of hearing, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of this Court passed in WPA 8323 of 2024 decided on
29.01.2025, Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Union of
India and Ors. wherein, it is stated the Court decided on
exactly the same issue which has been raised by the petitioner
in the present writ application, that is the tribunal going beyond
the order of reference. The Court held:-
“7. In Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Ors., (AIR 1964 SC
st
1746), decided on 1 April, 1964, the Supreme
Court held:-



Page 5



“7. In dealing with this question, it is necessary to
bear in mind one essential fact, and that is that the
Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction.
Its jurisdiction is to try an industrial dispute referred
to it for its adjudication by the appropriate
Government by an order of reference passed under
Section 10. It is not open to the Tribunal to travel
materially beyond the terms of reference, for it
is well-settled that the terms of reference
determine the scope of its power and
jurisdiction from case to case. Section 10 itself
has been subsequently amended from time to time.
Act 18 of 1952 made substantial amendments in
Section 10. One of these amendments was that
Section 10(1)(d) now empowers the appropriate
Government to refer the dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the
dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in
the Second Schedule, or the Third Schedule, to a
Tribunal for adjudication. In other words under
Section 10(1)(d), the appropriate Government can refer
to the Industrial Tribunal not only a specific industrial
dispute, but can also refer along with it matters
appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the
said dispute. In that sense the power of the
appropriate Government has been enlarged in regard
to the reference of industrial disputes to the Tribunal.
8. Section 10(4) which was also added by the same
amending Act provides, inter alia, that the jurisdiction
of the Industrial Tribunal would be confined to the
points of dispute specified by the order of reference,
and adds that the said jurisdiction may take
within its sweep matters incidental to the said
points. In other words, where certain points of
dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal
for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said
points, deal with matters incidental thereto, and
that means that if, while dealing with such
incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some
persons who are not joined to the reference
should be brought before it, it may be able to
make an order in that behalf under Section
18(3)(b) as it now stands…………..”



Page 6



6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal
of the materials on records, it appears that:-
i. The learned tribunal rightly considered and decided
the issue of eligibility and entitlement of Jitendra
Muchi, the son-in-law of the deceased Binod Muchi.
ii. The tribunal also rightly decided the entitlement of
Smt. Sakunma Muchi, as to her monthly monetary
cash compensation.
iii. It is the part “Management of eastern coalfields limited
is directed to consider the name of any nominated direct
dependent of late Binod Muchi for providing employment
on attaining majority”, that the petitioners claim is
beyond the scope/issues in reference and thus liable to
be quashed and set aside.
7. It appears from the materials on record that, in Para 6 of the
impugned award, the names of the family members of the
deceased has been noted, which shows that the deceased has
left behind, his wife and daughter and sons.
8. As such the direction for consideration of the direct descendant
of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment being
clearly incidental/connected to the issues in reference, suffers
from no illegality and thus requires no interference by this
Court.



Page 7



9. WPA 15853 of 2026 is dismissed.
10. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of
consequently.
11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
12. 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.)