Dependent employment under NCWA constitutes a binding statutory settlement and cannot be denied based on other family members' employment.

The petitioner’s mother, Late Smt. Bhagwaniya, was a General Mazdoor at Rajnagar OCM under South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) until her death in harness on 07.05.2011.

The petitioner, recorded as a dependent in official records, applied for employment under the Social Security Scheme of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) on 12.09.2011.

The respondents rejected the claim via a letter dated 20.04.2012, citing that the petitioner’s father was already employed with SECL.

The petitioner challenged this inaction/rejection, seeking appointment and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) constitutes a binding "settlement" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, creating an enforceable right to dependent employment.

2. Whether the respondent could validly deny dependent employment solely on the ground that another family member (the father) was already employed, despite no such restriction existing in the NCWA.

3. Whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the 11-year gap between rejection and filing.

The court primarily applied Section 2(p) and Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which define and establish the binding nature of settlements on all parties.

It relied on the precedent in Mohan Mahto v. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 549, which held that rights flowing from a settlement cannot be curtailed by inconsistent executive circulars.

It further applied the principle from Smt. Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal (AIR 2018 SC 783), distinguishing between discretionary compassionate appointment and mandatory dependent employment under a bipartite agreement.

Finally, it followed the Division Bench ruling in SECL v. Avinash Saloman (Civil Appeal No. 8728/2018), which affirmed that the NCWA does not exclude dependents based on another family member's employment.

The Court reasoned that the NCWA is a statutory settlement that governs service conditions and is not a mere "concession" but a contractual liability of the employer.

Applying the 'Rule of Law', the Court found that Clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 of the NCWA provide an absolute right to consideration for one dependent without stipulating that other family members must be unemployed.

The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on internal meeting minutes from 2004 to deny the claim, noting that administrative instructions cannot override a binding bipartite settlement.

Regarding delay, the Court held that since the matter concerned livelihood and a binding social security provision, and the 2012 rejection lacked cogent reasoning, the principles of equity favored the petitioner, especially as the legal position was recently settled in Avinash Saloman.

The Court emphasized that SECL, as "State" under Article 12, failed to act fairly by taking an "unholy plea" to deny a legitimate entitlement.

The Court quashed the rejection order dated 20.04.2012.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application for dependent employment strictly according to the NCWA provisions applicable at the time of the mother's death, without regard to the father’s employment status, and to pass a reasoned order within 45 days.