Strict construction of compassionate appointment scheme excludes illegitimate son from dependant category under the wage agreement

Compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement VI must be construed strictly according to the scheme, because it is a limited concession and not a heritable right. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 creates legitimacy only for limited purposes and cannot be used to expand the dependant category beyond the scheme's express terms. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not control the meaning of "son" in this context. The expression "son" in Clause 9.3.3, read with the separate reference to "legally adopted son," was treated as limited to legitimate sons, so an illegitimate son born from a void second marriage was not included.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "son" in Clause 9.3.3 of Chapter X of the National Coal Wage Agreement VI, in the category of dependants for compassionate appointment, includes an illegitimate son born out of a void second marriage of a deceased employee.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment is not a heritable right or property but a limited concession under the governing scheme, and therefore its terms must be strictly construed. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 creates a legal fiction of legitimacy only for limited purposes and does not enlarge rights beyond the property of the parents. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act does not govern the scope of a compassionate appointment scheme. The expression "son" in the relevant clause appears alongside the qualified expression "legally adopted son", indicating that the word "son" is used in a restricted sense of legitimacy. The scheme does not expressly include an illegitimate son born from a void marriage.

Conclusion: The expression "son" in Clause 9.3.3 does not include an illegitimate son born out of a second void marriage, and the claim for compassionate appointment was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A compassionate appointment scheme must be construed strictly according to its own terms, and the statutory fiction of legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be invoked to expand the category of dependants beyond what the scheme expressly provides.

---