Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.@mdashIn this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.4.03 contained in Annexure-4 issued by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the appropriate Government has refused to refer the industrial dispute to the appropriate Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the same is without any substance. It has been stated that the Petitioner''s mother was a permanent employee of M/s B.C.C.L in its Howrah (N) Colliery, District-Dhanbad. She died in harness on 12.5.93 leaving behind the Petitioner as her only son and dependant According to the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA-IV, the Petitioner made his claim for his appointment on compassionate ground after eight months of the death of his mother. His application was examined and he was asked to rectify the application. Thereafter, the Petitioner took the required steps as far back as in the year 1994, but after about four years his claim form was returned on the ground that the same was not signed and approved by the G.M of the area. Being aggrieved by the said attitude of the Management, the Petitioner sought to raise a dispute through the Labour Union. The dispute could not be resolved by conciliation and as such the same was sent to the appropriate Government [the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III] for reference to the appropriate Labour Court. The appropriate Government instead of referring the dispute to learned Tribunal for adjudication, entered into the merit thereof and held the same without substance on the ground that the dispute has been raised after nine years of the death of the concerned workman. It has been submitted that the delay was caused by the Management in finalizing the Petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment and the Petitioner was not at fault. The appropriate Government without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has decided the dispute on merit holding the same belated and without substance.
2. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the B.C.C.L as also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government opposed the writ petition and submitted that the alleged dispute was regarding the claim of compassionate appointment of the Petitioner after the death of his mother in the year 1993. Almost 17 years have passed thereafter. Getting appointment on compassionate ground is based on several factors and considerations and the main consideration is the shock affecting the dependents after the death of an earning family member and to mitigate the hardship resulted by sudden death of the earning family member. The said urgency and the purpose has, thus, been frustrated after lapse of long time. The dispute regarding the same was sought to be referred after nine years of the death of the concerned workman. In view thereof, the appropriate Government has prima facie found the dispute not referable for adjudication. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and it cannot be said to have touched the merit of the claim of the Petitioner.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and the materials on record. Though from the record it appears that there was delay in processing the application of the Petitioner also on the part of the Management, the Petitioner himself was not vigilant and serious about his claim. He had been silently observing the delay being perpetuated by the Management for several years. Now admittedly 17 years have passed after the death of the concerned workman and the Petitioner has been able to meet the adverse situation for a long period of time. The urgency created by sudden demise of bread earner has faded.
4. The provision of the compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the Defendants after sudden death of the bread earner and the same is not a facility to the dependant for getting employment by an alternative mode - by passing the prescribed procedure for selection and appointment at any point of time.
5. Reviving claim of compassionate appointment after about 17 years is something strange to the object of the said provision. I, therefore find no reasonable around for interfering with the impugned order of the appropriate Government. In view thereof. I have not gone into the question as to whether the order of the appropriate Government amounts to entering into the merit of the claim of the Petitioner.
6. For the above reasons, this writ petition is not entertainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
