KUNKU DEVI Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent to provide employment to the petitioner with back wages from the date of death of her husband i. e. , September 17, 1984 and to restrain the respondent from evicting her from the quarter which was allotted to her husband and in which she is living with her five minor children.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that her husband Gopilal Meena was appointed as a clerk by the respondent in the year 1977. In the year 1983-84, he was promoted as Office Assistant. He committed suicide on September 17, 1984 as he was not given due promotion and a settlement was arrived under Section 12 (3), Industrial Disputes Act between the respondent and the representatives of the Unions of its workers and it was agreed thatonedirectdependentof the employee who dies while in service will be given employment in the Company. Despite several representations and assurances, she has not been given appointment so far. She had to file a civil suit for an injunction against the respondent when it was going to evict her from the quarter. Objection was raised against the maintainability of the suit and she was advised to withdraw it and moved an application on July 18, 1989 for withdrawal of the suit and appeal.

(3.) IN reply to the show-cause notice, it is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner's husband Gopilal Meena was appointed as a clerk, he was subsequently promoted as Office Assistant w. e. f. January 1, 1979, after the death of Gopilal Meena terminal benefits and other outstanding dues were given to the petitioner and she made several representations for giving employment to her. It has been averred in the reply that she is not entitled to retain the said quarter allotted to her husband Gopilal Meena, the settlement referred to in the writ petition was not applicable to the employees working in the head office, it is applicable to the employees working in the mines and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under it. It has also been averred that the respondent has issued guidelines (Annex. R/1) for giving employment to the dependents of deceased and employments are being given accordingly, and she has concealed the fact of filing the suit in the court of Munsif, Udaipur against the respondent for providing her employment. It has also been averred that the petitioner is an illiterate, she does not possess required qualification and on August 4, 1989 she has been employed as a casual worker in the Medical Department on daily wages @ Rs. 28/- on compassionate ground.