The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to communicate discharge orders to employees and the requirement to provide alternative employment for medically discharged employees as per the relevant government order.

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. Facts of this case remainds of this popular Tamil film song. This is a classic case as to how responsible people acted inhumanely, illegally while dealing with the service of their own "sick employee". It is very disheartening to note that a driver affected by "Epilepsy" was discharged from service unfairly and in a manner unknown to law consequently throwing his family with two minors to indigent circumstances. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of one Muniyandi, who was employed as a driver by the second respondent Transport Corporation for more than 15 years. The said Muniyandi fell ill and took treatment as an inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital armature and died on 18.3.1995 while he was in service. Subsequently the petitioners submitted an application for payment of service benefits from the second respondent, who paid only gratuity and provident fund and refused to pay other benefits viz, "Group insurance" and "Family pension" to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/-. A lawyer notice dated 26.7.1996 sent by the petitioners did not evoke any response. Therefore C.P. was filed u/s 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming the aforesaid amount.

2. The said claim petition was resisted by the second respondent on the ground that the workman was discharged from service on medical ground through order dated 27.2.1995 and that the gratuity amount of Rs. 22,341/- and provident fund amount of Rs.30,844/- were paid to the petitioners and that the amount under the "employees group insurance scheme" is payable, only, where an employee dies while he is in employment, whereas the said Muniyandi died after discharge from service.

3. It was further contended that there is no fund called as "Family Benefit Funds" and there is a "Social Security Scheme" which is also available only to those who die during employment, attain superannuation and avail voluntary scheme. Therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain a petition u/s 33(c) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act as Muniyandi was already discharged from service.

4. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the labour court found that the petitioners did not prove that the employee died during employment and that he was already discharged from service on 27.2.1995 before his death on 18.3.1995 and the same was admitted by the first petitioner in her letter Ex.R2 and that no relief could be granted tithe petitioner. The said order of the Labour Court is being challenged before this court in this writ petition.

5. Heard the rival contentions. Original file from the second respondent was summoned and perused. It is an admitted position that the said Muniyandi was employed byte second respondent Corporation. The only dispute is whether he died on 18.3.1995 while he was in service or not. It is the contention of the second respondent/corporation that the said Muniyandi was discharged from service on 27.2.1995 and thereafter only he died on 18.3.1995 and therefore no amount is payable to the petitioners. Though the main issue is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to benefits under Group Insurance and social security scheme, it directly depends upon the issue as to whether the workman died on 18.3.1995 while he was in service or not?

6. It is true that the party who approaches the court has to prove his/her case through pleadings and positive evidence. Where as in this case, it is the contention of the petitioners that the said Muniyandi (Workman) died while he was in service, which was denied by the second respondent Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no proof available on record to show that the discharge order dated 27.2.1995 (Exhibit-R3) was served upon the employee C. Muniyandi. When the second respondent corporation admitted that the said Muniyandi was in service and discharged from service on 27.2.1995, it is bounden duty of the second respondent to prove as to how the workman was discharged fr