The legal representatives of a deceased workman can apply for appointment on compassionate grounds, to be considered by the management in accordance with Regulations and Rules.

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manvendra Reddy appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty for the respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working as driver in the Respondent-Corporation since 1985. That the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Respondent-Corporation on the allegations of unauthorized absence, as such the husband of the petitioner Sri. Malleshi raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No.162/2006. During the said proceedings before the Labour Court, workman died. The legal representatives of the deceased workman were permitted to come on record. The Labour Court allowed the claim petition setting aside the order of dismissal, directing the Respondent to pay the terminal benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. It transpires that the petitioner gave representations to the Respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of death of her husband. The Respondent-Corporation issued an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner and her children are not entitled to be taken into service on compassionate grounds. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Respondent-Corporation has wrongly interpreted the order of Labour Court. It is clear from the order of the Labour Court in as much as the claim made by the petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds that the legal representative of deceased workman, sought appointment for legal representative No.3 on compassionate ground. It was observed by the Labour Court that the Court cannot direct the management to take the legal representative of petitioner No.3 on compassionate ground; the management has to follow the Regulations to appoint any person on compassionate ground and in case the legal representatives of the deceased workman desire, they may apply before the management and in case regulations or rules permit, the management may take one of the legal representative on compassionate ground. This vital aspect was not considered by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment of petitioner’s son Sri. Chandrasekhar on compassionate grounds.

4. It was contended that the petitioner’s son is entitled to an appointment under the compassionate grounds in terms of the Circulate No.839, dated 09.10.1991 of the Respondent-Corporation. It was mandatory for the Corporation to examine the eligibility of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Regulations and Rules and not interpreting wrongly, the order passed by the Labour Court.

5. In furtherance of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in Christina Vs. Management of KSRTC, ILR 1995 Kar 422.

6. Learned counsel Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty appearing for Respondent-Corporation heavily placing reliance on the operative portion of the order of the Labour Court contended that the Labour Court has categorically held that the first party is not legal representative of the deceased workman and is/are not entitled for backwages and any other reliefs prayed in the claim petition, except the terminal benefits. The petitioner has not challenged the said order of Labour Court, which has reached finality. In terms of the order of the Labour Court, no legal representative of deceased workman, are entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the same, no exception can be found with the endorsement impugned herein in rejecting the claim of the petitioner’s son.

7. Adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the legal representatives of the deceased workman got amended the prayer column of the claim petition, in the proceedings before the Labour Court, sought to set aside the order of d