The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents have an obligation to provide employment on compassionate basis to the legal heirs of deceased employees, even if the deceased was a contract labourer, if the death occurred during the course of employment and was not natural.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records made in the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Let.No.046006/427/G8/G81/2013-4 dated 04.04.2015 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and sanction family pension and death cum retirement benefits.)

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with the order passed by the 2nd respondent/the Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, Chennai, in Letter No.046006/427/G8/G81/2013-4 dated 04.04.2015, and to further direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and also sanction family pension and death cum retirement benefits with respect to the service rendered by the father of the petitioner P.Rajagopal.

2(a). The petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of filing the writ petition. His father was employed as a Contract Labour from 1989 with K.Lakshmanan, in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the Office of the Junior Engineer (O&M), Virunchipuram, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle. It is claimed that the petitioner-s father was employed without any break in service and his service was permanent and perennial. However, his name was omitted in the Justice Khalid Committee Report, which had been formed to identify contract Labourers for being observed in service in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The father of the petitioner continue to work as a Contract Labourer

2.(b) On 12.03.2004, the father of the petitioner along with Line Inspector P.Durairaj had carried out repairs at Mottur SSIII, 250 KVA transformer at Virunchipuram. While they were reconditioning the said transformer at about 12.00 p.m., the father of the petitioner suffered shock by electrocution and died on the way to Hospital. In this connection, Arulselvan/the Assistant Engineer, had given a police complaint and accordingly, a FIR was came to be registered in Crime No.93 of 2004 by the Inspector of Police, Virunchipuram Police Station. Thereafter, the Post Mortem report confirmed that the death was due to electrocution.

2. (c) The petitioner, his mother, his sister and his grandfather were the only legal heirs of deceased P.Rajagopal. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner filed an application seeking compensation against the respondents herein under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, in W.C.No.249 of 2004 and an award was passed on 11.04.2005, directing the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,270/- (Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As against that particular award passed by the Commissioner of Labour, the respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.634 of 2006. Pending appeal, the mother of the petitioner had filed an application seeking employment on compassionate ground for her son namely the petitioner herein, consequent to his completion of 18 years of age.

2. (d) The petitioner has averred in the affidavit that his mother was informed that compassionate appointment could not be granted since the father was a contract labourer. Thereafter, the judgment in C.M.A.No.634 of 2006 was delivered, wherein one of the primary issue that had been decided was that the father was an employee under the respondents and holding so on the basis of evidence let in, the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 22.09.2010, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and confirmed the award of the Commissioner of Labour. The petitioner quite independent of the earlier application given by his mother had also given a representation seeking employment on compassionate grounds on 29.05.2013. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 27.06.2013, directed the 3rd respondent to furnish