INDIAN BANK Vs. PROMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend by referring to the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank and Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar - (2015) 7 SCC 412 that it is the scheme on the date of death of the employee or at least when the application is made, which would apply. However, on record it appears that when the application was made by the son of the deceased employee, he was not even major and, thus, could not get employment. The other two children were younger. Wife of the deceased employee/ respondent No.1 was already employed.

(2.) In terms of the impugned order a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs has been awarded which has been stayed by this Court. The moot point which arises is as to whether the condition for the eligibility for such monetary compensation existed under the earlier scheme and, if so, what are the terms and conditions thereof. Unfortunately, the earlier scheme has not been placed on record, though learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was on record before the High Court.

(3.) The aforesaid being the only aspect, let a copy of the scheme be placed on record with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondent by tomorrow.