IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21421 of 2009(W)
1. JOLLY MATHEN, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., REG.
3. THE PERSONAL MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN
4. DIRECTOR(PERSONAL) SOUTH EASTERN COAL
5. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANGAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 21421 OF 2009 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s husband Sri.K.M.Mathan was an employee of the
2nd respondent. Sri.Mathan expired on 27/4/1987. Subsequently,
based on the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement
No.V, pension scheme was introduced in the company w.e.f.
1/7/91. The benefit of the scheme was not extended to the
petitioner. She filed O.P. No.14593/2002 claiming the benefits.
That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing
consideration of her claims.
2. Writ Appeal No.226/06 was filed by the 2nd respondent.
During its pendency, the 2nd respondent agreed to pay the
benefits claimed by the petitioner w.e.f. 01/02/96. Accordingly,
Ext.P2 memo was filed in the Writ Appeal. Taking note of Ext.P2,
the writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. Accordingly,
the 2nd respondent calculated the amount due to the petitioner
and paid Rs.3,73,000/-.
3. On receipt of the amount, petitioner filed Ext.P4 before
the respondents complaining that she was entitled to a total
WPC 21421/09
:2 :
amount of Rs.4,12,000/- and that she should be paid the
differential amount of Rs.39,000/-. That claim of the petitioner
was turned down by the respondents by Ext.P5 stating that the
amount calculated by the petitioner was wrong and that she has
been paid the amount that was actually due.
4. According to the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P8 the
National Coal Wage Agreement No.V, she was entitled to be paid
Rs.2,000/- each for the period from 01/02/1996 to 30/9/96 when
the agreement expired. It is pointed out that as per Clause 9(v) of
P8, the respondents themselves had agreed to revise the rates
w.e.f. 1/7/96. Petitioner submits that as there was delay in
concluding Agreement No.VI, respondents issued Ext.R3(b) giving
interim payment of Rs.2,500/- w.e.f. 1/9/99, which according to
the petitioner was also not paid to her. Subsequently, by Ext.P10
the National Coal Wage Agreement No.VI , benefits payable was
revised from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- w.e.f. 1/7/96. It is stated
that she is therefore entitled to be paid Rs.3,000/- each for the
period from 1/7/96 till 31/8/2007. It is stated that if her
emoluments are calculated adopting the amount provided in
Ext.P10, she will be entitled to the differential amount claimed by
WPC 21421/09
:3 :
her in Ext.P5.
5. The only basis on which the 2nd respondent is seeking
to resist the claim of the petitioner is that according to the 2nd
respondent, the rates which were revised by Ext.P10, Agreement
No.VI, is applicable only w.e.f. 1/1/2000. It is stated that
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further payment.
6. In the light of the controversy that is raised, the only
issue that needs to be considered is what is the effective date of
Ext.P10 agreement No.VI. Once the effective date is decided, the
petitioner is entitled to be paid the emoluments as revised by
agreement No.VI from that date. Ext.P10 is the Agreement No.VI,
Clause 1 of Chapter I providing for scope of coverage of
Agreement reads as under:
“This agreement shall be called the National Coal Wage
Agreement VI from 1/7/96 to 30/6/01.”
7. Therefore, the agreement is specific that it is effective
from 1/7/96. Agreement also shows that the emoluments due to
the petitioner has been revised from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. If
that be so, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the revised benefit
of Rs.3,000/- for the period from 1/7/96 to 30/6/01. The case of
WPC 21421/09
:4 :
the respondents that agreement is effective only from 1/1/2000 is
patently erroneous. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
succeed.
Writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
respondents to extend the benefit of the revision of emoluments
implemented by Ext.P10 National Coal Wage Agreement No.VI for
the period from 1/7/96 to 30/6/2001. The amount due shall be
quantified and paid to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp