Employer cannot deny compassionate appointment and monetary compensation where delay resulted from its own inaction.

Late Mangru Majhi, an employee of Jambad OCP, Eastern Coalfields Limited, died in harness on 1 May 2001, leaving behind his widow, Budhani Mejhain, and minor son, Chando Majhi.

On 18 June 2001, the widow applied for compassionate employment. Although the management offered monetary compensation in lieu of employment, it neither paid the compensation nor effectively processed the claim.

In 2005, the widow applied for employment for her son, and the son subsequently submitted his own application. The management conducted several screenings between 2013 and 2017 but ultimately rejected the compassionate appointment claim on the ground of delay.

The widow’s application for Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC), submitted in 2019, was also rejected on the ground of delay.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, in Reference Case No. 14 of 2023, directed Eastern Coalfields Limited to provide employment to Chando Majhi and to pay MMCC to Budhani Mejhain from 1 May 2001 until employment was provided to her son.

Eastern Coalfields Limited challenged the award under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending principally that the claims were highly belated and that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing compassionate employment to Chando Majhi despite the substantial lapse of time after the death of his father?

2. Whether the widow was entitled to MMCC under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA, notwithstanding the delayed formal application for such compensation?

3. Whether the delay in processing and deciding the dependants’ claims was attributable to the management, thereby preventing it from relying on delay to reject the claims?

The Court applied Clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 of the NCWA. Clause 9.3.0 provides for employment of a dependent upon the permanent disability or death of an employee in service; Clause 9.3.2 concerns employment or monetary compensation for a female dependent; and Clause 9.5.0(iii) requires that where a male dependent is aged twelve years or above and employment is not immediately provided, he is to be kept on a live roster and given employment upon attaining the requisite age, while the female dependent receives monetary compensation during the intervening period.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and fairness, holding that an employer cannot rely on delay caused by its own failure to process or decide a claim.

It considered the authorities cited by the management, including State of West Bengal v. Purnam Pradhan and Nunibala Mondal @ Nuni Mondal v. Eastern Coalfields Limited, as well as the Division Bench decision in Sukhomoni Majhan v. Union of India.

The Court also noted that the NCWA did not prescribe a specific limitation period for such claims.

The Court found that the widow’s initial application was made within approximately two months of Mangru Majhi’s death and therefore there was no initial delay on the dependants’ part.

The management failed to process the claim for employment or pay the offered monetary compensation and did not communicate an effective decision for several years. The son’s subsequent application in 2005 was consequently viewed as arising from the management’s inaction rather than from an unexplained abandonment of the claim.

Applying Clause 9.5.0(iii), the Court held that the obligation to maintain the eligible minor dependent on the live roster was cast upon the employer and did not depend exclusively on a formal application by the dependent.

Since the son was a dependent and the claim had been repeatedly screened by the management, rejection solely on the ground of delay was found to be unjust and contrary to natural justice.

The Court therefore concluded that the management could not benefit from delay substantially attributable to its own conduct.

Eastern Coalfields Limited was directed to provide compassionate employment to Chando Majhi after completion of the requisite formalities and to pay MMCC to Budhani Mejhain in accordance with Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA.

The management was directed to comply with the award within thirty days from the date of the High Court’s judgment.

Any interim order was vacated and connected applications were disposed of.