R.MANOHARAN Vs. HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Initially petitioner had sought as relief No.1 apart from the above-mentioned reliefs, a direction to appoint the petitioner's daughter, who was arrayed as second petitioner, as the legal heir of petitioner's wife who had died in harness. However, by an order dtd. 14/1/2019, the said prayer was deleted along with the second petitioner from the party array.

(3.) Petitioner alleges that he and his wife were workers under the first respondent and due to various sufferings that his wife had to undergo in the company, she died in 2007. Despite seeking the benefit of the dying-in-harness scheme for the petitioner's daughter, her application was rejected, initially, stating that she is a minor. Petitioner further alleges that, subsequently, in 2013, when his daughter attained majority, her application was again rejected. After the petitioner retired in 2015, again when his daughter applied for an appointment under the scheme for dying-in-harness, it was rejected by the first respondent. Petitioner further alleges that in 1986 his wife had to undergo a major surgery and despite her being unable to work properly, she was transferred to another Sec. , though on her request but was asked to work with lower grade workers and compelled to do hectic work. In the meantime, in 2007, petitioner was suspended from service as a result of which his wife suffered immensely leading to aggravation of her illness. Petitioner alleges that even after retirement, respondents continued to harass him and even denied the eligible emoluments due to him. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking directions for a CBI enquiry.