Smt. Vasantha vs Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Another

Subhash B. Adi, J.—Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents. Petitioner has sought for quashing of an endorsement dated 30th June, 2012 issued by respondent No. 2 produced at Annexure ''F'' rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that, the deceased workman had not died while he was in employment.

The facts, which are not in dispute are that:

The deceased workman was dismissed from service by order dated 11.08.2004. As against the order of dismissal, the deceased had sought for reference in case No. 3/2009 before the Third Additional Labour Court. While the said reference was pending, the workman died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Labour Court, by its award dated 24th October, 2011, has set aside the order of dismissal and has treated the workman as having continued in service till his death. The award in reference reads as under:--

Reference u/s -- 10(1)(c) and (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the First Party applicants who are the legal representatives of the deceased workman, above named against the second party management is allowed in part and thereby the order of dismissal dated 11.08.2004 passed by the second party management of dismissing the workman Selvakumar from service is set aside and in view of the fact that the workman has breathed his last and hence, he is deemed to have continued in service till the date of his death having the effect of continuity of service only for the terminal benefits arising out of the death of the workman while on duty.

In view of the award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal and treating the deceased workman as having continued in service till his death, the Corporation should have taken into consideration the nature of the award and its implications and the question as to whether it entitles the legal representatives of the deceased to seek compassionate appointment. Without referring to the award and without considering the same, the second respondent has issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, I find that, the Corporation is required to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the award passed by the Labour Court as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.