IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21421 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOLLY MATHEN, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE MR. K.M.MATHEN, RESIDING AT MULAVANA HOUSE, PULIYOOR, ALLEPPEY DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO COAL AND MINES DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI. 2. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., REG. OFFICE AT SEAPET ROAD, P.B.NO.60-DILASPUR-495001 M.P.STATE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE PERSONAL MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., SONAGPUR AREA DHANPUR.P.O. DHANPUR SHABDOL, M.P. 484114. 4. DIRECTOR(PERSONAL) SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIEDLDS, SCHAGPUR AREA DHANPUR.P.O., (DT) SHAHDOL, M.P. 484114. 5. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANGAR, SOHAGPUR AREA, DHANPURI.P.O., DT. SHHDOL M.P.484114. ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21421/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 8.8.2005 IN OPNO.14593/2002 OF THE HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT 13.6.07 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF the JUDGMETN IN WA NO.226/03 DT 13.6.07 OF THE HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 18.9.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 4.10.07 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 21.5.2008 NUMBERED AS PLP NO.1/08. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 7.11.2008. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE N.C.WAGE AGREEMENT V. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF NATIONAL COAL WAGE AGREEMENT VI EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE CHAPTERS DEALING WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND PENSION SCHEME OF N.C.W.A. VI. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TREU COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 4.7.94. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 23.10.99. EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 11.11.99. EXT.R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp 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