AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the widow of late Serla Eswar Rao, who, while working as General Mazdoor in PK 1 Incline in the establishment of the 1st respondent company died in harness on 24-9-1990. The petitioner submitted an application to the company on 29-1-1993 requesting the company to provide her appointment to a suitable post on compassionate ground under the scheme framed by the company. The petitioner was called for interview and she was interviewed on 19-4-1994 for the post of General Mazdoor; the petitioner on 24-4-1994 was subjected to medical fitness test and she was found to be fit for the job; on 16-5-1994 the petitioner was sent to undergo Mines Vocational Training and she completed the training. Subsequently, the management by the impugned proceedings dated 9-11-1994 refused to appoint the petitioner to the post of General Mazdoor, The order reads:
"Ref.No.Pk.1/31(g)3775 Date 9-11-94 Smt. S. Mani, W/o. Late Sri Serla Eswar Rao, Ex-General Mazdoor, PK-1 Incline.
Sub: Providing dependent employment-reg.
Dear Madam,
You have submitted an application dated 29-1-1993 requesting to provide dependent employment to yourself in lieu of your husband''s death.
In this connection it is to be mentioned that your husband Sri S. Eswar Rao, General Mazdoor, expired on 24-10-1990. As per circulars in force, it was decided to review the pending cases of female employment to females before 31-12-1992.
Though your husband died before 2-10-91, did not submit application before 31-12-1992. Hence, it will not be in order to provide dependent employment to yourself. You may submit application for payment of monetary benefit of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in lieu of providing dependent employment.
Yours Sincerely,
Colliery Manager, PK-1 Incline/MNC.
The management has referred to a settlement entered into by it with the Trade Unions in the Industry. According to the settlement, the petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment should have been pending as on 2-10-1991 and since the petitioner did not make application within the time, her request for appointment cannot be acceded to.
Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, assailing the validity of the impugned order, would contend that the management acting on the representation of the petitioner dated 29-1-1993 took steps to interview her on 19-4-1994; subjected her to medical fitness test on 24-9-1994 and sent her for undergoing Mines Vocational Training on 16-5-1994, and therefore it is totally arbitrary and unreasonable for the management to refuse appointment on compassionate grounds at this belated stage taking technical view that the petitioner did not make application before 31-12-1992.
In the counter filed by the management of the company, it is pointed that the management and the Trade Unions earlier had entered into a settlement because of the difficulties which had arisen regarding employment of women in mines and under the said settlement, the parties had agreed to pay the reimbursement of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the female dependents, if the employee dies in harness. The relevant parts of the settlement are extracted in the counter affidavit They read:
"Dependant employment:
As women employment is prohibited in the Mines and restricted to surface departments, employment opportunities to the female dependents are meagre. Due to the difficulty in providing employment to female dependents, a scheme of monetary benefit in lieu of providing employment to female dependents has been agreed vide settlement dated 25-10-1991 and the same is being continued.
Pending cases of female dependents as on 2-10-1991 will be finalised subject to their medical fitness, by the end of December, 1992."
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after necessary reflection, I do not find any justifiable grounds to grant the relief. The petitioner''s husband admittedly died on 24-9-1990. In the first instance, the petitioner did not make application within the stipulated time of one year. Added to this, the settlement entered into between the management and the trade unions u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on the dependents of the employees also and the settlement has statutory force. It is quite clear from the extracted portion of the settlement that the management was required to consider the claims of the female dependents of the deceased employees for appointment on compassionate ground only when such applications were pending as on 2-10-1991. Admittedly, the petitioner''s application was made beyond that date, The Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, , held that a dependant of the deceased employee should make application within the stipulated time and if no application is made within the stipulated time, he is not entitled to claim the appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. In that case, the respondent was a son of the deceased employee and was a minor at the time of the death of the employee. Under the relevant regulations a minor dependant of the deceased employee who is entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground was required to make application within three years after attaining the age of majority, and application was not made within the time. In this case also, the petitioner did not make application within the stipulated time in terms of the binding settlement. Since, the settlement has statutory force, the Court cannot issue any direction to the respondent company to do something contrary to the provisions of the settlement. No case is made out for interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, this order will not preclude the petitioner to make a representation to the management of the company for consideration of her case for appointment to any suitable post as a temporary or permanent employee by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions. If such an application is made by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, it is trusted that her application will receive compassionate treatment and the same would be considered having regard to the feet that the management of the company had acted on her earlier application dated 29-1-1993, subjected her to undergo medical fitness test and found her to be fit and also the petitioner underwent Mines Vocational Training w.e.f. 16-5-1994 and completed the same. I make these observations, as the Supreme Court has done in Haryana State Electricity Board''s case, (supra) while rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. No costs.