JUDGMENT

Malimath, C.J. -- 1. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working with the Indian Oil Corporation namely the appellant herein. He died in service on 22.5.2013 on account of an accident. He survived by his wife and minor three year old son as on that date. Seeking appointment on the ground of the death of her husband while in service, she made an application to the respondent/employer. The same was rejected. Questioning the same, the instant petition was filed.

2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order quashed the order of rejection and directed the employer to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment subject to her fulfilling other conditions. Questioning the same, the respondent/employer is in appeal.

3. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. That, the clause on which the re-employment was sought for does not include a widow. In the absence of including a widow, an appointment could not be made. He further submits that the clause relied upon by the petitioner is part of a memorandum of settlement dated 12.4.1990 arrived at between the employer and the employees. That, it was a memorandum of settlement with various clauses. The same contained Annexure-1 wherein Option No.3 was for employment on the death of an employee. Since, the same does not include a widow, it cannot be granted. That, such a scheme cannot be modified by the orders of the Court. Hence, he relies on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 Madras 441 (The Employees in the Caltex (India), Ltd. Madras and another v. The Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Government of Madras and another), (1978) 2 SCC 133 (New Standard Engineering Company Ltd. v. N.L. Abhyankar and others) and 2002 AIR SCW 630 (I.T.C. Ltd., Workers Welfare Association and another v. The Management of ITC Ltd. and others).

4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent who contends that the appointment sought for on the basis of a scheme. That there has been only a typing error in not stating that the widow is entitled, specially in view of the preamble to the settlement which includes a widow. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference is called for.

5. Heard learned counsels.

6. The memorandum of settlement arrived at between the employer and employee was produced as Annexure-J4 in the writ petition. It primarily reads that the employer does not have any pension scheme for retiring workmen. That, the existing benefits are not adequate, therefore, a demand for a suitable pension scheme has been made. It is under these situations that a memorandum of settlement was arrived at. The same contains Annexure-1 which is the “Scheme for Rehabilitation of the Family of the Employee Dying or Suffering Permanent Total Disablement While in Service”. The preamble to Annexure-1 indicates that the same will operate in the case of a death or permanent total disablement of a workman while in service then the female spouse or the dependent male spouse, as the case may be, may opt within six months of the death of the employee, any of the following three options. Therefore, the same clearly indicates that the widow or the widower is entitled to claim the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme. Option-1 is for the purposes of a monthly recurring superannuation and Option-2 is for full salary till the notional date on which the employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Both these options are not applicable to the case on hands. What is applicable is Option No.3. Option No.3 narrates eligibility of the son/daughter, which may also include one who is adopted. Therefore, it is contended by the appellant that it does not include a widow or a widower.

7. On considering the preamble to the memorandum of settlement, the same would clea