Case: Balbir Kaur  Vs. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.

five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement :[Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority]......" 14. It is upon consideration of the above noted provisions of Section 4, it was contended that question of compulsory depositing of the gratuity amount does not and cannot arise. We shall come back to the deposit of the Provident Fund but as regards the Gratuity amount, be it noted that there is a mandate of the statute that Gratuity is to be paid to the employee on his retirement or to his dependants in the event of his early death - the introduction of Family Pension Scheme by which the employee is compelled to deposit the Gratuity amount, as a matter of fact runs counter to this beneficial piece of legislation (Act of 1972). The statutory mandate is unequivocal and unambiguous in nature and runs to the effect that the gratuity is payable to the heirs of the nominees of the concerned employees but by the introduction of the Family Pension Scheme, this mandate stands violated and as such the same cannot but be termed to be illegal in nature. We do find some substance in the contention as raised, a mandatory statutory obligation cannot be trifled with by adaptation of a method which runs counter to the statute. It does not take long to appreciate the purpose for which this particular Family Pension Scheme has been introduced by deposit of the provident fund and the gratuity amount and we are not expressing any opinion in regard thereto but the fact remains that statutory obligation cannot be left high and dry on the whims of the employer irrespective of the factum of the employer being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 or not. 15. Adverting to the Provident Fund, be it noted that the same is payable to an employee under the provisions of a statue and this statutory obligation cannot possibly by deferred in the event of an untimely death of a worker or an employee. As noticed above, the family needs the money in lump-sum and availability of this amount is the only insulating factor in such a grief stricken family. The amount is payable in one lump and as a matter of fact it acts as a buffer to the retirement of or on the death of an employee. Situations are not difficult to conceive when the family needs some lump-sum amount but in the event of deposit of the same with the employer, the heirs of the deceased employee could be put into the same problems of realities of life, even though, if this money would have been made available to them the situation could have been otherwise. 16. In any event as appears in the contextual facts, the NJCS Agreement being a Tripartite Agreement expressly preserves the 1982 circular to the effect that any benefit conferred by the earlier circular shall continue to be effective and on the wake of the same we do not see any reason to deny the petitioner the relief sought for in the writ petition. 17. On the wake of the aforesaid, we do feel it convenient to record that the option should have been made available either to have a compassionate appointment provided, however, the deceased employees representative is otherwise competent to hold the post or the adaptation of the family pension fund by way of deposit of provident fund and gratuity amounts. In fact, however, there was no option taken from the employees, at least no records have been produced therefor, neither any submissions made in that regard. Mr. Bhasme further pointed out that though the present appeals related to two individual cases but any interpretation contrary to the one canvassed by the respondent "is likely to open a Pandoras box" since in the huge "empire" of the respondent, several such cases would be existing which would have to be reconsidered. 18. Mr. Bhasme further contended that family members of large number of the employees have already availed of the Family Benefit Scheme and as such it would be taken to be otherwise more beneficial to the concerned employee. We are not called upon to assess the situation but the fact remains that having due regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Rescopound pointed out that the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law Courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law Court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction. 19. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal very strongly contended that as per appellants information the respondent-Steel Authority of India is in fact providing compassionate employment even now to one dependant of an employee dying in harness or permanently disabled. We are however not inclined to go into the issue on this score. 20. In that view of the matter these appeals succeed, the order of the High Court stands set aside. Steel Authority of India is directed to consider the cases of compassionate appointments in so far as the appellants are concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. 21.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Turning on to the factual aspects once again, it is not that compassionate appointments have never been effected. Steel Authority of India was in fact providing compassionate employment to one dependant of an employee dying in harness or permanently disabled. As a matter of fact on 22nd September, 1982 the respondent-Steel Authority, further issued the Circular pertaining to appointments on compassionate grounds. The Circular however for the first time introduced categorisation of compassionate employment as First Priority Cases; Second Priority Cases and Third Priority Cases.any event as appears in the contextual facts, the NJCS Agreement being a Tripartite Agreement expressly preserves the 1982 circular to the effect that any benefit conferred by the earlier circular shall continue to be effective and on the wake of the same we do not see any reason to deny the petitioner the relief sought for in the writthe wake of the aforesaid, we do feel it convenient to record that the option should have been made available either to have a compassionate appointment provided, however, the deceased employees representative is otherwise competent to hold the post or the adaptation of the family pension fund by way of deposit of provident fund and gratuity amounts. In fact, however, there was no option taken from the employees, at least no records have been produced therefor, neither any submissions made in that regard. Mr. Bhasme further pointed out that though the present appeals related to two individual cases but any interpretation contrary to the one canvassed by the respondent "is likely to open a Pandoras box" since in the huge "empire" of the respondent, several such cases would be existing which would have to be reconsidered.