S MANI Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of late Serla Eswar Rao, who, while working as General Mazdoor in PK1 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 dt. 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 29-01-1993 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

(2.) The management has referred to a settlement entered into by it withthe 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.

(3.) Sri. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing thevalidity of the impugned order/ would contend that the management acting on the representation of the petitioner dt. 29-1-1993 took steps to interview her on 19-4-1994; subjected her to medical fitness test on 24-4-1994 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.