MUKHI MEJHAN vs M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

Present:-
The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad
And
The Hon’ble Justice Partha Pratim Roy


APOT/325/2025
IN WPO/77/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
VS.
MUKHI MEJHAN AND ORS.
AND
APOT/13/2026
IA NO: GA/1/2026

MUKHI MEJHAN
VS.
M/s EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.


For Appellant in :Ms. P. Banerjee, Adv.,
item 1 & for Ms. S. Sikder, Adv.,
respondent in item 2.


For Respondent in item 1 & :Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv.,
for appellant in item 2. Ms. B. Pramanick, Adv.,
Ms. Haritri Roy, Adv.
Mr. A. Singha, Adv.,


Heard on : August 27, 2026.

Judgment on : September 1, 2026.

2


Partha Pratim Roy ,J.:
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Order and Judgment dated
th
19 June, 2025 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to allow
the writ application, by directing the concerned respondents to quantify
the Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) payable to the
petitioner strictly in accordance with the law, and shall release and pay
the MMCC under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) Scheme to
the petitioner positively within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order.


2. It was further directed that the relevant date for the purpose of
quantifying the compensation would be the date of death of the workman
on October 21, 2012.
3. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge assailed in the Intra-
Court appeal on the following points:

i. That the Hon’ble Single Judge while passing the Order impugned
failed to take into consideration that the right of MMCC crystallized
th
on 10 October, 2012 and the writ application has been filed in
the year 2025 therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
on the ground of delay and latches.
ii. That there is no application filed by the petitioner to avail the
MMCC under the provisions of NCWA and thus he was not entitled
to get such benefit after for a period of thirteen years.

3


4. The writ petitioner has filed an independent appeal being
APOT/13/2026, since petitioner’s claim for interest on the amount of
compensation due, was rejected.

5. Both the appeals involve common questions of law and facts therefore
both the appeals were heard analogously.
6. It appears from the pleadings of the writ petitioner that the husband of
st
the writ petitioner died in service on 21 October, 2012.
7. From the writ petition it appears that a hand written intimation
regarding demise of the employee was submitted by his wife (writ
petitioner) in 2012 itself. Subsequently, the application dated 01.08.2014
was submitted. Thereafter, an application was submitted on 28.01.2025.
From the application it is obvious that the petitioner at the very first
opportunity in December 2012 itself submitted the hand written
communication “death information” in giving intimation regarding
demise of her husband. The subsequent letter reads as follows:

“To
The Sr, Manager (M)
Barmondia (A) Colliery
Salanpur Area,
(E.C.L.)

Sub: DEATH INFORMATION

4

Respected Sir,
This is bring to your kind notice that I am an unfortunate widow of
Late Baneshwar Majhi, my husband had been died on 21-10-2012,
unfortunately during his running service period.
So, I pray before your goodself necessary action may kindly
taken in this regards.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
LFT
(SMT. MUKHI MEJHAN)
w/o Late Baneswar Majhi
Kg. Loader
No. U. Man No. 128561
Enclo: Xerox copy of
1. Death Certificate of
Sub Divisional Hospital, Asansol
2, Councillor Asansol. M.C.
31 No. ward.”

8. The subsequent applications of 2014 and 2025 have stated the
petitioner’s claim for an employment on compassionate ground and grant
of MMCC under the NCWA.

9. The Learned Single Judge while considering the aforesaid application
came to a positive finding that the law is now well settled that it is the
obligation of the Coal Company to pay MMCC payable to the petitioner in
accordance with law, but rejected the prayer for interest on the arrear
amount.

5

10. In support of the submission regarding belated claim, the learned
Advocate for the ECL relied upon a decision in the Apex Court in the case
of Purohit and Company Vs. Khaoonbee and Another r eported in
(2017) 4 SCC 783 on the proposition that the delay in claiming relief is
itself a ground for rejection of the same.
11. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner/ appellant in APOT no
APOT/13/2026 on the other hand submits that rejection of the writ
petitioner’s claim for interest by the learned Single Judge is
unsustainable both in facts; and law.
12. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner/ appellant in APOT no
APOT/13/2026 further contended that factum of the death of the
employee was communicated to the office of the respondent in the year
2012. Therefore, it is within the knowledge of the employer that the
st
employee died on 21 October, 2012. The writ petitioner was thus legally
entitled to get either MMCC or employment on the compassionate ground
as per provisions contained in the NCWA.
13. He further submits that the respondent authority did not consider
the claim of the writ petitioner for affording employment on the
compassionate ground. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the
employer to provide monthly monetary cash benefit to the writ petitioner,
who is legally entitled to receive the same. It is submitted that even if the
ECL had extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, then the
petitioners would be entitled to receive MMCC from the date of

6

unfortunate demise of the workman till the date on which all
appointment is granted on compassionate grounds.
14. On the contrary the learned advocate for the ECL in support of the
order to the extent of refusing to grant any interest on the arrear
compensation amount submits that in absence of the application
claiming MMCC, the authority is not under any obligation to pay the
same. Therefore, on the ground of delay alone such prayer cannot be
acceded to.
15. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner /respondent in
reply to such submission refuting such submission draws attention to
the judgment passed in Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. Maya
Bouri, APOT/205/2025 And submits that filing an application for
availing such benefits is not mandatory, as the grant of MMCC is an
entitlement founded in the NCWA, which is binding inter parties, and not
a matter of discretion.
16. We have considered the arguments presented by the learned
advocates for the parties and the evidence on record.
17. The submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the
appellant are twofold, firstly the delay in filing of the writ application,
and secondly there is no application on the part of the petitioner claiming
benefit of MMCC under NCWA.
18. We find from the records that by a letter submitted in the month of
December 2012, intimation of the employee’s demise was given diligently,

7

which was within a period of two months from the date of death.
Therefore, the ECL was expected to immediately extend the benefit to the
writ petitioner in furtherance of the beneficial object underlying the grant
of MMCC under the NCWA. The ECL, however, did not extend such
benefit in the year 2012. From the facts of the present case, it further
appears that despite receiving intimation of the employee's death,
Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) neither intimated the petitioner about
the fate of her application for employment, nor informed her that, as an
alternative to such employment, she is entitled to receive Monthly
Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) under the National Coal Wage
Agreement (NCWA). Such inaction on the part of ECL demonstrates that
the employer completely failed to discharge its under NCWA obligation to
extend the beneficial scheme to the intended beneficiaries, and withheld
such benefits without any rhyme or reason whatsoever.
19. The intimation to the employer regarding the death of employee is
sufficient for the purpose of getting benefit of MMCC under NCWA, it will
be apposite to consider the Judgement passed by the coordinate Bench
of this Hon’ble Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Sumi Kamin
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7573 whereby and
whereunder the Hon’ble Coordinate bench, held that ECL was at fault by
not offering the entitlement of the writ petitioner and consequently by not
guiding her through, to submit her claim.

8

20. Therefore upon receiving the death intimation of the employee it is
the duty of the employer to provide the benefit, and/or to intimate that if
she gets an employment on the compassionate ground under NCWA,
then she might not receive the benefit of MMCC. In view of the law laid
down in the Judgement reported in Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs.
Sumi Kamin and others (Supra), no formal or specific application was
required to be made to avail of such benefits of MMCC under the NCWA.
Therefore, the ECL’s argument that it cannot grant benefits without a
formal application is legally untenable and opposed to the judgements to
which the very same appellant was a party; and the judgements are of a
coordinate Bench.
21. The ECL being a statutory authority failed to consider that the
NCWA is a binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In this context it will be appropriate to rely upon the Judgment reported
in S.K Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and
another, reported in 2002 SCC online SC 1160 , where the Hon’ble
Apex Court laid down the law that the employer's obligation to assist an
illiterate claimant rather than creating procedural hurdles.

22. Therefore the other ground urged by the ECL is also not
sustainable, as the respondent did not receive the benefit on the laches
on the part of the appellant, and thus the appellant is not entitled to take
benefit of its own wrong, by denying the right of the respondent on the
ground that there is delay in preferring the writ application.

9

23. Non-payment of benefit of MMCC, which the appellant is bound to
pay every month, is a continuous cause of action, and the delay due to
the reason of the inactions on the part of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited
cannot be made a basis for the ECL to defeat such entitlement of the writ
petitioners. The non-payment of MMCC constitutes a continuous cause
of action, therefore when the delay stems entirely from the appellant’s
failure to perform its legal obligations, then they cannot turn around and
penalise the writ petitioner.
24. Despite intimation regarding death of the workman immediately
thereafter, no endeavour whatsoever was made by the ECL to extend the
benefit of MMCC under NCWA to the present writ petitioner. Therefore,
the plea of ECL regarding delayed application, to resist the grant of
interest, on the arrears due, clearly lacks bonafide and is an
afterthought. In view of the inaction on the part of the ECL, as noticed
above, the writ petitioner, (wife of the deceased workman) was forced to
live with financial hardship for nearly 13 years.
25. We, therefore, find no force in the submission of the learned
advocate for the ECL that the writ petitioner is disentitled to grant of
interest on the arrears of MMCC due to any delay on her part in making
an application for grant of such benefit. On the contrary, we find such
conduct of the respondents deplorable, since earlier ECL has raised the
same plea in respect of claims made by others, and they suffered orders.
The ECL judgements wherein the same plea was turned down, plea that

10

grant of benefit under MMCC was depended upon making of an
application for the same, which is unsustainable. The ECL was all along
conscious about the demise of the writ petitioner’s husband. The grant of
benefit under MMCC is under the NCWA which is binding on the ECL
under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
26. The issue regarding automatic entitlement to MMCC, subject to
intimation regarding demise and fulfillment of conditions for grant of
such benefits under Law with effect from date of demise of the concerned
workman, is no more res-integra . We, however, cannot overlook the fact
that despite such settled legal position, the present writ petitioner was
deprived of the benefit. Even after an order passed by the Hon’ble Single
Judge in the writ proceeding ECL preferred the present appeal.
27. Under the facts and circumstances considered above, the writ
petitioner, in our opinion was able to make out a case for grant of
interest on the amounts (MMCC) due to the petitioner under NCWA.
28. We, therefore, find that the writ petitioner was entitled to grant of
interest on the amount earned by the ECL by unjustly holding on to the
amount of MMCC due to the petitioner and deriving accretion of interest
thereupon, at the cost of the writ petitioner.
29. Taking the totality of the above noted circumstances, we direct for
payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the dues of MMCC with effect
st
from 21 October, 2012 till the date of payment. We further direct the
payment of monthly MMCC with effect from the 1st day of October, 2026.

11

The arrears should also be paid to the writ petitioner along with interest
as directed above within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order before the respondent
authority.
30. The appeal filed by the ECL is dismissed. The appeal filed by the
writ petitioner, being APOT No 13 of 2026 is allowed in these terms.
Connected applications in both the appeals are also disposed of.

31. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
formalities.

I agree.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)