Bindu C. v. Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.6470 OF 2015(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BINDU C. AGED 36 YEARS DAUGHTER OF CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SREE BHAVANAM, PALAKKALMURI, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690524.** **BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 M/S. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN 682036. 2 GENERAL MANAGER KERALA ELECTRICAL & ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 691501.** **BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner who is the daughter of late Chandrasekhara Pillai, is aggrieved by the rejection of her application for compassionate employment. 2. Petitioner's father late Chandrasekhara Pillai was employed under the 1[st] respondent in the statutory canteen of the 1[st] respondent on contract engagement. As per Ext.P1 award dated 31.07.1998 in I.D.No.111/95 petitioner's father and others who were working in the canteen were directed to be reinstated declaring that they were regular workmen of the Company. Ext.P1 award was under challenge by the Union as well as the Management and by Ext.P2 common judgment declaration and direction was upheld with a modification with respect to back wages. Writ Appeals filed by the Management against Ext.P2 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. SLP filed against the Division Bench judgment was also dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. Thereafter respondents took steps for implementation of the award for re-engagement of the workers by issuing Ext.P4 letter dated 27.10.2014. In the meanwhile petitioner's father passed away on 22.10.2005. W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 :3: 3. On coming to know about the proceedings for reengagement in implementation of the award, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application for compassionate employment. It is stated that the petitioner and her mother are the only dependents of late Chandrasekhara Pillai. Ext.P8 application was rejected as per Ext.P10 letter dated 06.12.2014 stating that the petitioner, being a married daughter, was not entitled to claim employment under the compassionate employment scheme and that only dependents of the deceased can apply for employment. It was also stated that as late Chandrasekhara Pillai was not in actual service when he died on 22.10.2005, her application cannot be accepted at that stage, on that ground also. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P10 order. 4. It is stated that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner's husband died on 12.03.2016. It is also pointed out that the matter was referred for mediation from this Court and thereafter the respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that being a Government Company, approval of the Government is necessary from the concerned department for compassionate employment of dependents of employees under State Public Sector Undertakings, in W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 :4: accordance with Ext.R1(a) Government order dated 07.06.2007. It is stated that when the matter was posted for mediation, a proposal was made to consider the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post subject to approval of Government; thereupon respondents referred the matter to the concerned Department; as per Ext.R1(b) letter dated 20.07.2018 District Collector, Kollam reported that the petitioner who was married even at the time of death of late Chandrasekhara Pillai is not eligible for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. It was also reported that the case of the petitioner can be considered only on getting special exemption from Government. Respondents have also stated that application of the petitioner is highly belated since the death occurred as early as in 2005. 5. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that procedure for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme is given in Ext.R1(a) order dated 07.06.2007, according to which the proposal for appointment under the Scheme has to be made in the concerned Administrative Department which is having control over PSUs and the concerned Administrative Department will process and issue orders with the concurrence of Planning & Economic Affairs (BPE) W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 :5: Department. Thereafter the Administrative Department will issue order sanctioning appointment of the candidate and formal appointment orders will be issued by the PSUs concerned. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel on both sides, it is seen that the petitioner has submitted her application as soon as the respondents started proceedings for re-engagement in implementation of the award. If at all she had submitted an application immediately after the death of the father, the respondents would not have considered the same for employment under the dying in harness scheme, when the award was under challenge. Therefore it cannot be said that there is delay in submitting application. Going by the judgment of the apex court in _**Food Corporation of India Workers' Union vs. The Food Corporation of India and another : 2001 KHC 1399,**_ relied on by Smt. Molly Jacob, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a person like petitioner's father who was directed to be reinstated but actually was not reinstated consequent to death, is deemed to have died while in service and therefore petitioner who is his only daughter was entitled to be considered for appointment under the scheme at the earliest opportunity, ## W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in tune with the object behind the scheme. 7. It is seen that the Administrative Department has not considered her case because of the report of the District Collector. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the role of the District Collector in the matter of appointment in the Company under the dying in harness scheme can only be with respect to the income and heirship of the applicant. Whether the applicant is eligible or not is to be considered by the Administrative Department, in accordance with Ext.R1(a) order or the orders issued from time to time. Such a consideration has not happened in the case of petitioner. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was the only daughter of the deceased workman. Dependency on father does not cease on a marriage. Full Bench of this Court has in the judgment in _**Raghavan V Kelappan: 2006(1)KLT 1**_ , while interpreting the term under Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act held that dependancy does not mean financial dependancy. In the judgment in ## _**Rev.Mother, Delphine Mary V state of Kerala: 2002(1)KLT**_ _**137**_ the Division Bench of this court, while considering the claim for compassionate appointment in a school, held that mere factum of marriage cannot be the reason for denying W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 :7: compassionate employment. Just because a daughter had got married, it cannot be said that the daughter would no longer be dependant on her father. It is seen that District Collector has furnished the report merely taking into account the date of marriage of the petitioner. It is seen that report is submitted without even ascertaining the status of the petitioner as on the date on which the enquiry if any was made. The petitioner became a widow by that time. Even accepting the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the status or condition of the petitioner as on the date of death alone can be considered, the denial of even a consideration on the ground that petitioner got married is illegal. There is no basis for coming to a conclusion that a daughter would no longer be dependant on her father, immediately on her marriage. Such presumptions have no factual or legal basis. Therefore the respondents ought to have considered the application of the petitioner dehors such presumptions. 9. It is also relevant to note that Government themselves have included married daughters among eligible dependents for the purpose of compassionate employment. At any rate it is found that the Administrative Department has not considered the application of the petitioner. The W.P.(C) No.6470/2015 :8: application is seen closed on receipt of the report of the District Collector, who has not considered it in the correct perspective. It is stated that the petitioner is the only daughter and even after marriage she continued to depend on the father; she as well as her mother have become destitutes and do not have any source of livelihood. Therefore, expeditious consideration of the claim raised by the petitioner is necessary irrespective of the fact that petitioner was married at the time of the death of the workman. 10. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to process the application-Ext.P8 submitted by petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause 25 of Ext.R1(a)order, treating the application as one submitted in time. On receipt of the proposal from the respondents, Government shall take expeditious action on the application of petitioner which would be forwarded to them. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.ASHA** Sd/- **JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COURT ON 31-7-98.** **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 9076/1999 DATED 13-6-08. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO. 3339833399/2011 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT DATED 3-2-2014.** **EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD 27-10-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY THEVALAKKARA GARAMA PANCHAYAT DT. 30-6-2010. EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEGAL HIERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7- PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO P NO. 12/99/OP & ARD DTD. 24-5-1999 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8- PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT UNDER THE DYING IN HARNESS SCHEME. EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING THE APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6-12-2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 PHOTO COPY OF THE DISCHARGE BILL FROM PADMAVATHY MEDICAL FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DATED 28.5.2017.**