LexBALBIR KAUR AND ANR. versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BALBIR KAUR AND ANR. v. STEEL AUTHOij.ITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. MAYS, 2000 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] \; Service·Law: ·Compassionate appointment to dependent of deceased employee-Intro- duction of Family Benefit Scheme by Tripartite Agreement-Effect of on com- passionate appointment-Held, said agreement expressly preserved circular pertaining to compassionate appointment-Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefit of compassionate appointments-Compassionate appoint- ment cannot be denied in view of objectives of social and economic justice enshrined in the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 12. Employees Provident.Found & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 & Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-Beneficial Legislation-Family Benefit Scheme requiring deposit of lump sum provident fund and gratuity amount in lieu of regular income per month-Validity of deposit-Held, such deposit counter to statutory provisions of the said Beneficial Legislations-Purpose of Scheme appreciated-Option between compassionate appointment and Family Benefit Scheme ought to have been taken ftvm employees-No option taken-Under the facts employer directed to consider dependants of deceased employee for compassionate appointment-Compassionate Appointment. Appellants are defendants of deceased employee and when their request for compassionate employment was not considered by respondent. employee, appellants tiled writ petition seeking enforcement of their right for being considered for compassionate appointment. High Court dis· missed writ petition holding that question of compassionate appointment would not raise on account of introduction of NJSC Tripartite Agreement in 1989. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appellants have pref erred these appeals. Appellants contended that obligation of compassionate appointment provided in 1983 Agreement has been expressly saved by clause 8 : 14.1 of 1989 Agreement; that the issue of compassionate appointment cannot be 1053 A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. trifled with in view of constitutional obligation towards Egalitarian soci- ety; and that deposit of lump sum gratuity and provident fund amounts under the Family Benefit Scheme runs coun\er to mandatory statutory obligations. Respondent contended that Family Benefit Scheme provided as- sured/regular income per month to family of decea,sed employee equiva- lent to basic pay together with dearness allowance last drawn till normal v date of Superannuation of concerned employee upon deposit of lump sum provident fund and gratuity amount with the management and therefore, was more beneficial; that family oflarge number of employees have availed the scheme; and that any finding against validity of scheme would create problems for respondent-employer. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The socialistic pattern of society as envisaged in the Constitution has to be. attributed its full meaning. The employer being admittedly an authority within the meaning of Article 12 has thus an obligation to act in terms of the avowed objective of.social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution. Having due regard to the constitu- tional philosophy to deny a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. [1059-C; E] Dharwad Disst. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 396, relied on. 2. The NJCS Agreement being a Tripartite Agreement expressly preserves the 19982 circular pertaining to appointments on compassionate grounds to the effect that any benefit conferred by the earlier circular shall continue to be effective and in the wake of the same there is no reason to deny the relief sought for in the writ petition. [1065-F] 3. The Family Benefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family. This is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental + BALBIR KAUR v. SAIL 105
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.