CLASSIFICATION OF WORKMEN-

3.1 For the purpose of these Standing Orders Workman shall be classified as follows:-
a) Apprentice
b) Badli or substitute
c) Casual
d) Permanent
e) Probationer
f) Temporary

It is stated that on a conjoint reading of Clause-9.3.1 of NCWA-VI and the Standing

Orders, ―permanent workman‖ has been defined in clause 9.5 of the Standing Orders
which states that a ‗Permanent' Workman is one who is employed on a job of permanent
Nature for a period of at least (six) months or, who has satisfactorily put in 6(six) months
continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer. While considering the same, the
deceased's long tenure of service from 1965 to 1985 under the Central Coalfield Ltd. a
subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. has not been taken into consideration. Like Central
- : 10 :-

Coalfields Ltd. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. is also subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and
initially Deulbera Coliery was under the Central Coalfields Ltd., which is a subsidiary of
Coal India Ltd. and due to creation of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. another subsidiary of
Coal India Ltd. the deceased employee was discharging his duties in the very same unit at
Deulbera Coliery. Therefore, the authorities should have taken into consideration the past
service of the deceased employee who was discharging the duties as a Loader in the very
same unit, which was subsequently brought into the Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. a
subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. Without considering the same taking into account the so-
called re-employment w.e.f. 1985 indicating him as a ‗Badli Loader' the benefit
admissible to the petitioner has been denied. After the death of the deceased though his
elder son, Pramod Kumar Parida submitted the application form for consideration for
compassionate appointment, the same has not been attended to due to the latches on the
part of the authorities. But when the representation was made by the petitioner under
Annexure-8 immediately the same was attended to and Annexure-9 has been issued
denying the claim that the same is not admissible as the deceased was working as a
‗Badli Loader'.

9. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines ‗Workman' as follows:

- : 11 :-
― Workman‖ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do
any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire
or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the
purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes
any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or
as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led
to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of
1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison;
or
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one
thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature.]

10. On perusal of the above provisions contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, this Court is of the opinion that it does not make out a distinction between the
‗workman' vis-à-vis ―Badli Loader‖. The definition of ‗workman' under Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act does not exclude even a casual employee or a substituted
employee like ―Badli Loader‖. Unless the context requires otherwise or it would be
repugnant to the normal definition of ‗workman' it will have to govern the sections of the
Act for the purpose of that interpretation. Applying the same analogy to the present
context, the deceased employee who was working as a ‗Loader' or

- : 12 :-

―Badli Loader‖ is coming within the wider definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and he is a ‗Workman' within the meaning of the said provision. If the
deceased employee comes within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act as a ‗Workman' then the benefits accrued as per the provisions contained in Clause
9.3.2 of NCWA-VI could not have been refused to the present petitioner.

11. The apex Court in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others,
AIR 2000 SC 1596, while considering compassionate appointment under the Steel
Authority of India held that compassionate appointment benefit cannot be negatived on
the ground of introduction of scheme assuring regular monthly income to disabled
employee or dependants of deceased employee. The apex Court observed thus:

8. ―The employer being Steel Authority of India, 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 but has the authority in the
facts of the matters under consideration acted like a model and an ideal employer -- it is
in this factual backdrop, the issue needs an answer as to whether we have been able to
obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not. Have
the lofty ideals which the founding fathers placed before us any effect in our daily life --
the answer cannot however but be in the negative -- what happens to the constitutional
philosophy as is available in the Constitution itself which we ourselves have so fondly
conferred on to ourselves. The socialistic pattern of society as envisaged in the
Constitution has to be attributed its full