SAVITRI DEVI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband was employed as a peon-cum-watchman in the United Industrial bank Limited and, while working in the erstwhile United Industrial Bank Limited, was retrenched by an order dated January 11, 1988 by tendering 3 months' salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It transpires that the erstwhile Bank was amalgamated with the Allahabad Bank on october 30, 1989 and the petitioner's husband also died on August 4, 1989. The widow raised an Industrial dispute before the Industrial tribunal, Kanpur, being Adjudication Case No. 47/1994, The term of the Reference Order is: "whether the action of the management of the erstwhile United Industrial Bank limited (since merged with Allahabad bank), New Delhi in terminating the services of Shiv Kumar Singh, watchman-cum-Peon (since expired on march28, 1988) w. e. f. January 11, 1988 was justified?. If not, what benefits is his widow entitled to?"

(2.) THE Tribunal found that the petitioner's husband was a confirmed employee, and consequently, held that the retrenchment procedure provided under Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act could not be adopted. The Tribunal held that the removal of a confirmed workman by way of retrenchment was bad in law. The Tribunal further noticed that since the workman had died, the question of reinstatement did not arise, and therefore, awarded Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. This Award became final and was not challenged by the respondent Bank or even by the heirs of the deceased. However, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9991 of 2000 praying for the enforcement of the Award and also for a direction to the respondent Bank to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated march 26, 1991 directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid direction, the respondent Bank rejected the representation of the petitioner by an order dated July 7, 2001 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.