KALYANAMMA Vs. CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 13107/2011 present appeal is filed. Appellant is the widow of one Ramaiah who was working as a driver under respondent-corporation. On the ground that he was unauthorized absent, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 28.5.1999. It appears, Ramaiah was unwell, therefore he could not attend the office. Since his illness was continued, he died on 9.7.2000. Thereafter appellant raised a dispute challenging the order of dismissal. Labour Court after holding an enquiry held that the dismissal was bad in law and his L. Rs. are entitled for 50% back-wages from the date of dismissal till his death along with other service benefits. Award of the Labour Court was questioned by the Corporation by filing a writ petition in WP No. 9959/2006 which petition came to be dismissed on 21.2.2007. Aggrieved by the dismissal of writ petition, respondent-corporation had filed an appeal in WA No. 903/2007 and at the instance of the respondent, matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat appellant agreed to forego 40% of the back-wages awarded to her and agreed to receive 10% of the back wages with all other benefits. Accordingly, writ appeal was disposed of on 22.2.2009.

(2.) Appellant relying upon the order in the writ appeal contending that she is entitled for all service benefits which is inclusive of appointment on compassionate ground, an application was filed by her son. The said application has been rejected on 3.2.2011 as per Annexure-A on the ground that in view of the settlement in the writ appeal, appellant was entitled only for 10% of back-wages and retirement benefits and there is no provision to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds. The endorsement dated 3.2.2011 was questioned by the appellant before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge has mis-directed himself in not considering the ground of rejection of the appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent. Learned single Judge has proceeded based on the judgment of the Supreme Court which judgment has no relevance to the facts of the present case. According to him, learned single Judge has proceeded as if the application is filed belatedly and therefore appellant is not entitled for the relief.