9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (5) TMI 1039 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Family Benefit Scheme as introduced in NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 and the consequences thereof on the existing welfare measure as contained in NJSC Agreement in 1983 whether we have been able to obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not? Held that - Appeal allowed. 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. 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Family Benefit Scheme in the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989. 2. Impact of the Family Benefit Scheme on the existing welfare measures in the NJSC Agreement of 1983. 3. Validity of compassionate appointments in light of the Family Benefit Scheme. 4. Compliance with constitutional obligations regarding social and economic justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Family Benefit Scheme in the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989: The core issue before the Court was to interpret the Family Benefit Scheme introduced in the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 and its implications on the existing welfare measures from the 1983 Agreement. The appellants argued that clause 8.14.1 of the 1989 Agreement expressly saved the requirement of compassionate appointments. The Court noted that the Family Benefit Scheme could not replace the compassionate appointment benefits, as the sudden loss of a breadwinner creates immediate financial needs that a lump sum payment can help alleviate. 2. Impact of the Family Benefit Scheme on the existing welfare measures in the NJSC Agreement of 1983: The Court examined whether the introduction of the Family Benefit Scheme in 1989 nullified the compassionate appointment provisions of the 1983 Agreement. Clause 8.14.1 of the 1989 Agreement stated that benefits from the previous NJCS Agreement would continue unless specifically altered. The Court found that the 1982 circular, which supported compassionate appointments, was preserved by the 1989 Agreement. Therefore, the Family Benefit Scheme did not eliminate the possibility of compassionate appointments. 3. Validity of compassionate appointments in light of the Family Benefit Scheme: The High Court had previously ruled that the Family Benefit Scheme negated the need for compassionate appointments. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Family Benefit Scheme and compassionate appointments serve different purposes. The Family Benefit Scheme provides regular monthly payments, but it does not address the immediate financial shock caused by the sudden death of a breadwinner. The Court stressed that compassionate appointments provide immediate relief and security to the bereaved family, which the Family Benefit Scheme alone could not offer. 4. Compliance with constitutional obligations regarding social and economic justice: The Court underscored the constitutional mandate to promote social and economic justice, as enshrined in the Constitution. It criticized the High Court for overlooking this aspect and highlighted the need for the law to be adaptable and flexible to serve societal needs. The Court referred to previous judgments and philosophical statements to emphasize that the ideals of the Constitution should be realized in practice, not just in theory. The Court concluded that denying compassionate appointments would be contrary to the principles of social justice and constitutional philosophy. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Steel Authority of India to consider the cases of compassionate appointments for the appellants. The Court held that the Family Benefit Scheme could not replace the benefits of compassionate appointments, and both should be available to the dependents of deceased employees. The judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to constitutional obligations and ensuring that welfare measures provide real and immediate relief to those in need.
|
