Supreme Court directs High Court to decide on compassionate appointment: South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. vs. Gulshan Prakash & Anr. (20 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 141

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can an employer reject a compassionate appointment application simply because another family member is employed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of a settlement agreement regarding compassionate appointments. The Supreme Court, in this case, did not delve into the merits of the case but rather directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending writ appeal. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the compassionate appointment of Gulshan Prakash, whose father passed away while in service in 2007. Gulshan Prakash applied for a compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), a settlement binding under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., rejected the application, stating that his mother was already employed and capable of supporting the family.

Aggrieved by this rejection, Gulshan Prakash filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur. The Learned Single Judge ruled in favor of Gulshan Prakash, directing the employer to reconsider his application for compassionate appointment as per the settlement agreement. This order was then challenged by the employer in a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur, allowed the writ petition filed by Gulshan Prakash, directing the employer to consider his candidature for compassionate appointment as per the settlement agreement (NCWA). 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 order of the Single Judge. This order of the Division Bench was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation 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.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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 authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer”

Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states:

“A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement”

Arguments

The primary contention of the employer, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., was that since the mother of the dependent was already employed and capable of maintaining the family, the dependent was not entitled to compassionate appointment. The employer argued that the scheme for compassionate appointment should be interpreted in a way that it is only meant for families that are in dire financial need.

On the other hand, the dependent, Gulshan Prakash, argued that the settlement agreement (NCWA) mandates that compassionate appointment be considered for dependents of deceased employees, irrespective of whether another family member is employed. He contended that the agreement is binding on the parties and should be implemented as it is.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues for determination in this case, as it chose not to delve into the merits of the case. Instead, the Court directed the High Court to hear the writ appeal on merits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending writ appeal.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not discuss any specific authorities in this order. The order primarily focuses on the procedural aspects of the case and the direction to the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not make any observations on the merits of the case. The Court disposed of the appeal with a request to 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, staying the operation of the High Court’s order, was directed to continue until the disposal of the writ appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to not delve into the merits and instead direct the High Court to hear the matter indicates a focus on procedural correctness and the importance of allowing the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction. The court’s sentiment was primarily geared towards ensuring that the matter is adjudicated by the appropriate forum without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to not delve into the merits of the case and instead direct the High Court to hear the matter is a clear indication that the Court wanted the High Court to decide the matter on its own merits.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case regarding compassionate appointment.
• ✓ The High Court has been directed to expedite the hearing of the writ appeal.
• ✓ The interim order passed by the Supreme Court will continue until the disposal of the writ appeal by the High Court.
• ✓ The case highlights the importance of settlement agreements in industrial disputes and their binding nature.

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

The Supreme Court did not lay down any new ratio decidendi in this case. The Court’s decision was primarily procedural, directing the High Court to decide the matter on merits. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in the case of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. vs. Gulshan Prakash is primarily a procedural direction to the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The Court did not express any opinion on the issue of compassionate appointment. The case underscores the importance of adhering to settlement agreements and the need for a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions by the High Court.