Acceptance of monetary compensation in lieu of employment bars subsequent compassionate appointment claims.

Ramdeo Nonia, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (“ECL”), died in harness on 15 October 1995, leaving behind his wife, Ahilya Devi, and son, Birendra Kumar Nonia, the respondent no. 5.

Ahilya Devi applied for compassionate employment on 13 January 1996. ECL subsequently rejected her claim on the ground that she had crossed the prescribed age limit and offered Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (“MMCC”) instead.

Ahilya Devi later applied for employment for Birendra Kumar after he attained majority. ECL nevertheless continued paying her MMCC until she reached 60 years of age in August 2011.

An industrial dispute was thereafter raised seeking employment for Birendra Kumar. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Asansol, held that denial of employment was unjustified and directed ECL to reconsider Birendra Kumar’s claim and assess his age under Implementation Instruction No. 76.

ECL challenged the award, contending that the National Coal Wage Agreement (“NCWA”) did not permit both employment and MMCC, that the claim was grossly delayed, and that Birendra Kumar was not of the requisite age to be placed on the live roster.

The High Court examined the service records, which indicated that Ahilya Devi was approximately 42 years and 6 months old and Birendra Kumar approximately 13–14 years old when Ramdeo Nonia died.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing ECL to reconsider Birendra Kumar’s claim for compassionate employment under Implementation Instruction No. 76 despite the contemporaneous service records showing that he was below 15 years of age when his father died?

Whether acceptance of MMCC by Ahilya Devi until she attained 60 years barred a subsequent claim for compassionate employment for her son under the applicable NCWA?

Whether the Tribunal’s award was contrary to the evidence and applicable provisions governing compassionate employment and the live roster?

The Court applied Clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 of NCWA-V, under which compassionate employment is ordinarily available to one dependent of a worker who dies in service, while the employment or monetary-compensation entitlement of female dependants is governed by Clause 9.5.0.

Clause 9.5.0(ii) permits a female dependant below 45 years to opt either for employment or MMCC, while a female dependant above 45 years is entitled only to MMCC; once MMCC is accepted in lieu of employment, both benefits cannot be claimed for the same death.

Clause 9.5.0(iii) applies where a male dependant is at least 15 but below 18 years of age: he may be placed on the live roster and provided employment on attaining 18 years, with MMCC being paid to the female dependant during the intervening period.

The Court also considered Implementation Instruction No. 76 and the principles discussed in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kumari Kiran Singh, APO 505 of 2017; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Dhiren Rawani, Civil Appeal No. 13923 of 2024; and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, which were relied upon by ECL.

The Court found that Ahilya Devi’s age had apparently been calculated as on the date of rejection in 1998 rather than on the date of Ramdeo Nonia’s death, and that she was approximately 42 years and 6 months old when the employment claim arose; therefore, the initial rejection on the basis of her being over 45 was erroneous.

However, she did not challenge that rejection at the relevant time and accepted MMCC continuously until attaining 60 years of age.

Under Clause 9.5.0(ii), MMCC was in lieu of employment, and the NCWA permitted only one employment arising from the employee’s death; consequently, acceptance of MMCC precluded a later claim for employment.

The Court further held that Birendra Kumar did not satisfy Clause 9.5.0(iii), since the service records showed that he was only approximately 13–14 years old when his father died, and therefore below the minimum age of 15 required for placement on the live roster.

The Tribunal had failed to properly rely on the longstanding service records and had directed a fresh age assessment without any material demonstrating that Birendra Kumar was at least 15 years old at the relevant time.

The records had remained undisputed for approximately 15 years and could not be displaced at such a belated stage.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s award was found to be contrary to the evidence and the applicable NCWA provisions.

Birendra Kumar was also ineligible for the live roster because he was below 15 years of age when his father died.

The Tribunal’s award dated 4 August 2023 was therefore held to be erroneous and perverse, quashed and set aside, and WPA 5831 of 2024 was allowed.

Connected applications were disposed of and any interim order was vacated.