Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
When a person dies while in service, can their dependent automatically get a job? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question concerning compassionate appointments. This case involves a dispute over the rejection of a compassionate appointment application, where the employer argued that the deceased’s wife was already employed. The Supreme Court, instead of deciding the matter itself, directed the High Court to hear the case on its merits. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Case Background
The case revolves around the denial of a compassionate appointment to the respondent, Gulshan Prakash, following the death of his father in 2007 while he was employed at South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL). Gulshan Prakash’s family applied for a compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), a settlement binding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer rejected the application, stating that the deceased’s mother was already employed and capable of supporting the family.
Gulshan Prakash then challenged this rejection by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007 | Death of the employee (father of the respondent) while in service. |
| Not Specified | Application for compassionate appointment made by one of the dependents. |
| Not Specified | Rejection of the compassionate appointment application by the employer. |
| 21 December 2015 | Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur, directed the employer to consider the respondent’s candidature for compassionate appointment. |
| 24 August 2016 | Division Bench of the High Court declined to grant interim relief to the employer and directed compliance with the Single Judge’s order. |
| 30 January 2017 | Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order of 24 August 2016. |
| 20 February 2023 | Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing the High Court to decide the matter on merits. |
Course of Proceedings
The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur, examined the settlement agreement (NCWA) and the material on record. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the employer to consider the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment. The employer then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench, while admitting the appeal, declined to grant interim relief to the employer and directed them to comply with the Single Judge’s order. This order of the Division Bench was then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which is a settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This settlement is binding on the parties under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The core issue is whether the employer was justified in rejecting the compassionate appointment application based on the fact that the deceased’s mother was employed.
The relevant legal provisions are:
- Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: This section defines “settlement” as a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.
- Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: This section states that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute.
Arguments
The arguments of the parties are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the core contention of the employer (South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.) was that the dependent’s mother was already employed and capable of maintaining the family, and therefore, the compassionate appointment was not justified. The respondent (Gulshan Prakash) argued that the NCWA settlement should be followed and that the employment of his mother should not be a bar to his compassionate appointment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Employer’s Submission |
✓ The mother of the dependent is already employed. ✓ The family is capable of being maintained by the mother. ✓ Compassionate appointment is not justified. |
| Respondent’s Submission |
✓ The NCWA settlement should be followed. ✓ The mother’s employment should not be a bar to compassionate appointment. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination in this order, as it chose to direct the High Court to decide the matter on merits.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment despite his mother’s employment. | The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the issue. Instead, it directed the High Court to hear the writ appeal on its own merits. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any authorities such as cases or books. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:
- Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Defining “settlement.”
- Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regarding the binding nature of settlements.
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | The Court noted that the NCWA is a settlement within the meaning of this section. |
| Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | The Court acknowledged that the NCWA is binding under this section. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Employer’s submission that the mother’s employment disqualifies the dependent for compassionate appointment. | The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of this submission. It directed the High Court to decide the matter on its own merits. |
| Respondent’s submission that the NCWA settlement should be followed and that the mother’s employment should not be a bar to compassionate appointment. | The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of this submission. It directed the High Court to decide the matter on its own merits. |
The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to direct the High Court to hear the matter on merits indicates that the Court found it appropriate for the High Court to examine the case in detail. The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the writ appeal was already pending before the High Court. The Court aimed to ensure that the matter is decided expeditiously and in the interest of justice.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Expeditious Disposal | 40% |
| Interest of Justice | 60% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Supreme Court considered that the High Court was the appropriate forum to decide the matter on merits. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court stated:
“At one stage, we were of the view to decide the appeal on merits rather to relegate the parties to get the writ appeal examined on merits by the High Court but after we have looked into the records, we are of the view that it may be advisable and in the interest of justice that the writ appeal pending before the High Court may be heard on merits.”
“We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.”
“The interim Order passed by this Court dated 30th January, 2017 shall continue until disposal of the writ appeal pending before the High Court.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court did not decide the case on its merits.
- ✓ The case has been sent back to the High Court to be decided on merits.
- ✓ The interim order of the Supreme Court will continue until the High Court decides the case.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal on its own merits as expeditiously as possible. The interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 30th January 2017, shall continue until the disposal of the writ appeal pending before the High Court.
Development of Law
This judgment does not establish a new legal principle. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of the High Court deciding the matter on its own merits. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court’s jurisdiction to decide a case on its merits when it is already pending before it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing the High Court to hear the writ appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the High Court to decide whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment.