1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2439/2009 VIJAY MAHADEO FULBOIENWAR V/S THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR ,W.C.L.& 2 OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE AND Mrs. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATED : 17 th MARCH, 2011 Called out for speaking to minutes. An error has been noticed in the 5th to 7th sentence of para 8 of this decision. Hence, para (8) is substituted by the following para:- “(8) Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalpana Sudhakar Jamunkar ..vs.. Ministry of Coal, Government of India and another (2010 (1) Bombay LC 319 (Bom)). We have carefully perused the said decision. We find that the facts therein are entirely different. The said case was concerning a widow of an employee of Western Coalfields Ltd. and compassionate appointment was being sought for her son who was then above 10 years of age but below 12 years of age. The 1996 settlement provided that in 2 case of death of employee if the male dependent of the concerned employee is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill, qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. By the subsequent National Coal Wage Agreement in the year 2000 the age of the male dependent was reduced from 15 years to 12 years. However, at the relevant time the functional Directors of respondent no.1 in its 156th meeting reduced the age to 10 years which was relied upon by the petitioner as her son was more than 10 years of age at the time of the death of his father. This Court observed that the wage agreement i.e. settlement of 2000 is binding on the parties and is required to be implemented in letter and spirit by the respondents. It was further observed that as the age of the son of the petitioner was 10 years i.e. less than 12 years as contemplated under the 2000 New Agreement, hence the son was not entitled to relief but granted relief to the widow herself as she was found eligible under the NCWA. Such are not the facts in the present case. Hence, this decision cannot be made applicable to the present case.” JUDGE JUDGE kahale