Dependents Of Deceased Worker Entitled To Automatic Compensation, No Separate Application Required: Calcutta High Court

Brief Facts:

The petitioner is the widow of one Bodi Bouri, since deceased, who was an employee of the respondent no. 1 (for short the Coal Company). The deceased employee had suffered an untimely death during his employment tenure on July 7, 2002.

After the death of the employee the petitioner on December 30, 2002 applied for compassionate appointment for his son-in-law, Annexure P-3 at page 37 of the writ petition.

The record shows that until the affidavit filed on April 17, 2025, the coal company neither decided the petitioner's application nor informed her about it. The application remained pending since 2002. The petitioner, now a 65-year-old woman, relying on Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, claims only monetary compensation with interest, not employment.

Contentions:

The petitioner submitted that in case of death of the employee other than mine accident, as in the instant case, if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, she will have an option either to accept monetary compensation or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not employment.

It was further submitted that the scheme for compassionate appointment is benevolent and must be construed liberally in favor of its beneficiaries. When a beneficiary clearly qualifies under the scheme, they have a right to its benefits. This agreement has been repeatedly upheld by the Court, which consistently holds that even if a beneficiary has not applied, the benefit must be extended if they qualify under the scheme.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that in 2002, when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, she was under 45 years old and sought the appointment of her son-in-law, not for herself or any monetary compensation. Since she never applied for monetary compensation, her claim was consequently rejected.

Lastly, it was submitted that the compassionate appointment scheme is a benevolent provision aimed at the immediate survival of the deceased employee's family. The record shows that after applying in 2002, the petitioner took no further action until December 2024, when she first claimed monetary compensation. This indicates that the family managed to survive for nearly 20 years after the employee's death, making compassionate appointment unjustifiable in this case.

Observations:

The court at the outset observed that the claim on account of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The policy for compassionate appointment is a benevolent policy of the State/employer. If the policy permits a beneficiary of such policy to receive the benefit under such benevolent policy in every respect, then, of course, such benefit has to be extended to the beneficiary in accordance with law.

It held that when the petitioner applied on December 30, 2002, invoking the relevant provisions of the agreement, it was the coal company's duty to fully consider her case. Had she been found eligible then, whether for employment or monetary compensation, the benefit should have been granted at that time. The entitlement to compassionate appointment or compensation should be reckoned from the employee's date of death.

The Calcutta High Court in the matter of : Putul Rabidas held that a perusal of the clause shows that dependency is attributed to a class of direct dependants, including an unmarried daughter. It further states that if no such direct dependant is available for employment, others listed may be considered dependants.

The court in the above case further held that applying a restrictive interpretation to exclude a divorced daughter who returns to her father's family would undermine the benevolent purpose of the scheme. Such an interpretation is neither misplaced sympathy nor a moral judgment but consistent with the scheme's intent to provide relief.

Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of : Sumi Kamin & Ors held that Appointment or monetary compensation to a female dependent of a deceased worker is automatic upon death, subject to the conditions in Clause 9.3.4 for appointment. No application is necessary. Regardless of the quantum of death benefits, a dependent as defined in Clause 9.3.3 is entitled to appointment consideration if of eligible age, or to monetary compensation.

The court further observed that the Constitutional Court, while exercising its plenary power under Article 226, also exercises equitable jurisdiction. Granting interest depends on equity, considering the case's facts and circumstances. Here, since the petitioner did not pursue her claim from December 30, 2002, until December 25, 2024, the Court finds it proper to reject the petitioner's claim for interest.

Accordingly, the present petition was allowed.

Case Title: MAYA BOURI Versus M/s. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.

Case Number: WPO No.33 of 2025

Judgment Date: 20/05/2025

For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv. Ms. Bratati Pramanik, Adv. Ms. H. Roy, Adv. Mr. Ratul Ghosal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Kanti Poddar, Adv.. Ms. Khusboo Ruia, Adv. Ms. Anjali Shaw, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order