Madras High Court
J.Kasithangam vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & on 9 September, 2014
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.23101 OF 2012
1.J.Kasithangam
2.J.Adhimoolam .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Represented by the Chairman
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dharmapuri. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Ka.No. 02/110 / Nipi.2 /U.3/ Ko.Thani/2012 dated 24.03.2012 and Ka.No. 007196 / 225 / Nipi.2 /U.3 /Ko. Va. Ve/2012, dated 27.06.2012 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to pay the petitioners family pension, family benefit fund and other terminal benefits including gratuity and also to provide the 2nd petitioner employment in the respondent corporation on compassionate grounds.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
O R D E R
The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The husband of the first petitioner was employed as a Contract Labourer in the respondent Electricity Board from 13.06.1989, which is not disputed by the respondents.
2.Earlier, there is a chequered history in the Electricity Board that workmen employed in the nomenclature of Contract Labourers were regularised periodically. There is no intermediary person between the workmen and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (shortly TANGEDCO), but the workmen are still called as Contract Workmen. 18,000 contract workers, who were not qualified, were absorbed as Helpers pursuant to the report dated 11.02.1991 of the Honourable Mr.Justice V.Khalid, former Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court, without age restriction and without reference to educational qualification. The contract labourers numbering 9095 employed in all thermal power stations were absorbed as Helpers by the respondent-Board in B.P.(FB) No.17, Secretariat Branch, dated 28.04.1999, without age restriction and without reference to educational qualification and the contract workers employed in Hydro Generation Circles, Basin Bridge and Narimanam Gas Turbine Stations, numbering 1002 were absorbed as Helpers, by the respondent Board in B.P.(FB) No.22, Secretariat Branch, dated 14.05.1999 without age restriction and without reference to educational qualification.
3.Thereafter also, hundreds of workmen employed in the nomenclature of Contract Labouers sought for regularisation and their case was referred by the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. The Industrial Tribunal took it on file in I.D.No.106 of 2000. When the industrial dispute was pending in I.D.No.106 of 2000, the Electricity Board and various Trade Unions entered into a settlement dated 10.08.2007 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 absorbing 21600 Contract Labourers as Mazdoors instead of Helpers in a phased manner as provided in the settlement. The scale of pay of Mazdoor is less than the scale of pay of Helpers.
4.I am not concerned with such absorption as Helper or Mazdoor as the same is not relevant for the purpose of this case.
5.Based on the aforesaid settlement, the Electricity Board issued B.P.44 dated 06.09.2007 for absorption of 21600 employees. As per the settlement read with B.P.44, among the 21600 employees, 6000 employees, who were already identified on 08.08.1998 by the Committee for absorption, have been absorbed as Mazdoors with effect from 15.09.2007 in the manner stated in the settlement and in the B.P. The remaining 15600 Contract Labourers, who were paid ex-gratia, would be absorbed in a phased manner on identification by a Committee of Officers to be deputed from Headquarters to various Circles for regularisation. As per clause 6(5) of B.P.44, based on the report of the Committee, the circle-wise list of Contract Labourers with reference to the date of entry will be arrived at, and 6000 Contract Labourers would be appointed as Temporary Casual Labourers (TCLs) with effect from 01.12.2007 for a period of one year on daily wages and then they would be absorbed as Mazdoors in the scale of pay with effect from 01.12.2008. Another 6000 Contract Labourers would be appointed as Temporary Casual Labourers (TCLs) with effect from 01.12.2008 and the balance of 3600 contract workmen would be appointed as Temporary Casual Labourers with effect from 01.12.2000 and they would be absorbed on Mazdoors on completion of 1 year of service as Temporary Casual Labourers (TCLs).
6.In this case, the first petitioner's husband was identified as a Contract Labour referred to in clause 6(5) of B.P.44. He was identified as a Contract Labour working from 13.06.1989 and he was issued an order dated 05.02.2008 appointing him as Temporary Casual Labourer (shortly TCL), as stated above, on daily wages of Rs.70/- for a period of one year. At the end of one year, he would be given scale of pay, as given to others belonging to his group. But unfortunately, the first petitioner's husband died on 07.10.2008 while he was working at Dharmapuri. According to the petitioners, the Workman Thiru.Jaganathan died during and in the course of employment, as he fell from lamp post due to electric shock.
7.In the said circumstances, a representation was made by the first petitioner to provide compassionate appointment and other terminal benefits to which they are entitled to.
8.The request of the petitioners was rejected by the third respondent vide impugned order dated 24.03.2012 on the ground that the husband of the first petitioner was only a TCL and not a regular workman and therefore, they could not be considered for compassionate appointment and other benefits. Again another order dated 27.06.2012 was passed by the third respondent on the same lines.
9.The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash those orders and sought compassionate appointment to the second petitioner and also terminal benefits, such as family pension, gratuity etc., payable due to the death of Mr.Jaganathan.
10.A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents refuting the allegations. The crux of the averments made in the counter affidavit is that since the father of the second petitioner joined duty as TCL on 11.02.2008 and he died on 07.10.2008 after rendering service as TCL only for 8 months and 23 days, that is, he died before completing one year service, he was not considered as a regular employee and therefore, the legal heirs cannot claim compassionate appointment and other terminal benefits payable to the workman.
11.Heard both sides.
12.It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased Jeganathan was not employed under a Contractor. But, on the other hand, he was directly employed by the TANGEDCO (formerly Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shortly TNEB) and the work done by him was supervised by the Board Officials under the chit agreement and one of the workmen among the contract workmen covered by the chit agreement is described as a Gang Leader, as if the Gang Leader is the contractor.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice, the details of the service particulars of the Contract Workmen employed under chit agreement by the Junior Engineer (O & M), TNEB, Kottapatty, wherein, the Junior Engineer described one M.C.Nehru and one V.Tamilselvan as Gang Leaders and both gang leaders are also employed along with the contract workmen including the deceased workman. The details of Contract labourers under the Chit Agreement, as furnished by the Junior Engineer (O & M), TNEB, Kottapatty, is usefully extracted hereunder :
Section : Kokttapatti Sub Division : AEE/O & M/ Harur Division : EE/O & M/ Harur S.No. Year Amount Chit Interest Total amount To whom Agt availed Name of the Contract Labour engaged Father's name Section No. of days attended Group Insurance taken not Nature of the work attended 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1991 to 1992 1992 to 1993 1993 to 1994 1994 to 1995 1995 to 1996 1996 to 1997 1997 to 1998 1998 to 1999 1999 to2000 2000 to 2001 2001 to 2002 2002 to 2003 2003 to 2004 2004 to 2005 2005 to 2006 2006 to 2007 2007 to 2008 2008 to 2009 5500 -- 2700 -- 7595 18589 7611 12680 31307 40787 68148} 57012} 141112 32083 49054 121490 37117 41849 33076 4401 6453 2481 1434 2683 4780 3832 11135 13270 15724 9920 6960 5840 5779 1698 336 700 -- 9901 6453 5181 1434 10278 23369 11443 23815 44577 56511 135080 21072 37924 54833 1188 37453 42549 33076 M.C.Nehru Gang Leader V.Tamil -selvan 1. M.C.Nehru 2.M.Jaganathan 3. V.Tamilselvan 4. C.Govindasamy 5. K.Sampath 6. M.Kumar 7. R.Ramesh Chinna -durai Kounder Muthu Chinnakkanu Krishnan Mariyappan Rathinam Kottapatty Group policy obtained only for the financial year 2005 to 2006 Various earth works in O & M / Kottapatty section Sd/- Junior Engineer, O & M/T.N.E.B., Kottapatty.
14.The aforesaid details make it clear that the deceased workman was employed from 1991 to 2009. Even after he was issued appointment as a Temporary Casual Labourer, he was still described as Contract Labour in the details submitted by the Junior Engineer. It is established that there was no contractor and they were directly employed by the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, now the TANGEDCO, and the works done by them were supervised by the Board Officials. They were paid by the officials of the TNEB for the workdone. All the contract workmen, including the gang leader, covered by the chit agreement divided among them equally the wages paid under the chit agreement.
15. Hence, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has much force, in view of the above said facts.
16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Management of Institute of Road Transport Technology, Erode V. S.Arumugam and others, in W.A.No.3570 of 2003, dated 02.02.2007, had an occasion to consider similar issue and held that though the appellant called the respondent as Contract workmen, they were directly employed by the appellant.
17.In that case, under the alleged contract entered into between the appellant and one among the respondent/workman, that is, one among the Security Guards is described as a Contractor for a few months and the alleged Contractor also discharged his duty as Contract Security Guard along with others and the amount under the contract was also equally shared among the contract Security Guards including the alleged Contract. When the said Security Guards were denied employment, their claim for reinstatement was rejected on the ground that they were not the workmen employed by the Institute of Road Management and they were contract labourers and they could not claim the relief of reinstatement against the management. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the Security Guards accepting the contention of the management. In these circumstances, this Court by an order dated 29.07.2003 in W.P.No.6465 of 1998 held that the so-called contract was a mere eye-wash and the contract employees have to be treated as the employees employed as direct employee by the IRT. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3570 of 2003 on 02.02.2007. Paragraph 14 of the order of the Division Bench is usefully extracted hereunder :
14. We are in entire agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge and we are also of the view that the alleged contract is only sham and not genuine. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the said factual findings of the learned single Judge. As held by the learned single Judge, the appellant institution is maintained by the Society, which also runs other educational institutions and therefore accommodating the respondents 1 to 5 as Security Guards will not cause any hardship to the appellant. Therefore, we direct the appellant to reinstate the respondents 1 to 5 as ordered by the learned single Judge within one month from today.
18.I am also fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. V. State of Saurashtra reported in 1957-I-LLJ-477, wherein, also the management took a plea that the concerned workman involved in the dispute was an independent contractor and not a workman employed by them and he employed his own laboureres under him. In that case, the said independent contractor was also working along with the workers said to have been employed by him and the Supreme Court reasoned that therefore, he cannot be held as an independent Contractor and on the other hand, held that he shall be treated to be an employee directly employed by the management.
19.The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in 1957-I-LLJ-477 was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The Management of Indian Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Madras reported in 1990-I-LLJ 50, wherein, the Tiny Deposit Collectors of the Indian Bank were treated by the Indian Bank as independent contractors. The Division Bench applied the law laid down by the Apex Court in 1957-I-LLJ-477 and held that those tiny deposit collectors are not independent contractors, but they are direct employees of the Indian Bank.
20.Applying the said principle, I am of the view that the deceased workman is also to be treated as Workman directly employed by the TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB) from 13.06.1989, as per the proceedings of the third respondent in Memo No.025/SED/Admn.2/A2/F.TCL/2008, dated 05.02.2008.
21.Since I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a contract workman, but was employed directly by the TANGEDCO, the deceased workman is entitled to be regularized on completion of 480 days of work in two years as per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. This Court has held in S.Vijayalakshmi V. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, reported in 2005 (3) LLN 706, that the permanent status would be deemed to have been granted statutorily, on completion of 480 days of service in two years, as per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment in 2005 (3) LLN 706 is usefully extracted hereunder :
4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that such provision casts an obligation on the employer to confer permanent status on an employee who has completed 480 days work in course of two years. It is of course true that during the life time of the husband of the petitioner, no such permanent status was actually conferred by any order of the management. It is also true that jurisdiction has been conferred on the inspector to conduct enquiry if necessary to find out whether an employee has completed 480 days or not. However, when facts are not in dispute, merely because no such enquiry had been conducted by the inspector, the petitioner's husband cannot be denied the benefits of the Act. In view of the mandatory nature of the provision, it shall be taken that an employee who had completed 480 days in a period of two years was permanent. This view receives considerable support from the decision reported in S.Gandhimathi V. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society (Milk), Tirunelveli and others [2003 (3) L.L.N. 743].
22.Therefore, the deceased workman shall be treated as Permanent workman, on completion of 480 days of work in two years, by applying the said ratio.
23.It is not the case of the Board that the deceased workman was settled with the Gratuity for his service as a contract labour, before absorption in TANGEDCO, pursuant to the settlement and the B.P.No.44. It is admitted by the TANGEDCO that the deceased was in employment as Contract Labourer from 13.06.1989 as per the proceeding of the Superintendent Engineer, Dharmapuri Electric Distribution Circle, proceedings in Memo No.025/SED/Admn.2/A2/F.TCL/2008, dated 05.02.2008.
24.It is a different matter that the deceased, a contract labour, who was absorbed in the proceeding dated 05.02.2008 in the service of the Electricity Board did not render service as Contract Labour. But he rendered service as Contract Labour from 13.06.1989 for a period of about 18 years in TNEB.
25.Even if the deceased Workman was employed as a contract workman under real contractor, the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity and the principal employer could recover the same from the Contractor, as per the decision of this Court in Madras Fertilizers Limited V. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and others reported in 2003 (I) L.L.N. 358.
26.In fact, the said case was applied by this Court in the Superintending Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam 636 406, V. Appellate Authority/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore and another in the order dated 23.06.2011 in W.P.No.26031 of 2007 and a direction was issued to pay gratuity to the contract workman/respondent therein by taking into account the service rendered earlier as a contract labour.
27.In this case, as stated above, admittedly, there is no contractor and one among the Workmen, like the deceased workman, was described as a Contractor under the chit agreement.
28.I have come to the conclusion that the said chit agreement system is a sham, nominal and a smoke screen, as the alleged contractor is also one among the contract workmen employed directly by the Board. Even in the case of real contract system, the TANGEDCO cannot escape from the liability of payment of gratuity to the contract workmen and in this case, since I have come to the conclusion that there is no contractor, the TANGEDCO shall pay gratuity to the petitioners for the service rendered by the deceased workman Thiru.Jaganathan from 13.06.1989 to 07.10.2008.
29.As far as pension is concerned, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are applied to the workmen employed by the TNEB. Since I have come to the conclusion that the husband of the first petitioner was employed as a direct workman under the TNEB from 13.06.1989, the regular service rendereed after 480 days in two years of service till 07.10.2008 along with 50% of service for the first 480 days of service shall be counted for granting pension.
30.In fact, in the case of workman employed by the INDCOSERVE, a Co-operative institution that supplies labour to TNEB, this Court held that such workmen are also entitled to pension from the TNEB, on absorption in the TNEB by counting 50% of service rendered as a contract workman through INDCOSERVE, in the order dated 27.02.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.11604 of 2009 (Pondurai Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin and Another).
31.In that case, the petitioner therein was employed by the Industrial Co-operative Services Society Limited, shortly, INDCOSERVE, that was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and the members of the said Co-operative society was employed by the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station and they were absorbed subsequently. When the issue as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner therein as a contract workman through INDCOSERVE shall also be counted for the purpose of pension came for consideration in that case in W.P.(MD)No.11604 of 2009, this Court held in the order dated 27.02.2014 that 50% of the service as a contract workman shall be counted for the purpose of pension.
32.In this case, the husband of the first petitioner was not employed through any co-operative society and on the other hand, he was employed directly by the Board. Hence, in my view, his entire regular service along with 50% of temporary service of 480 days shall be counted for granting pension.
33.Further, I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Lakshmi V. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 3840, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench, after elaborately considering all these aspects issued direction to the TNEB to issue appropriate proceedings making the petitioner's husband therein as a permanent employee and to pay the petitioner family pension, family benefits and other terminal benefits including gratuity as per Rules and regulations. The Division Bench also gave a direction to the TNEB to consider the representation of the petitioner therein for providing compassionate appointment.
34.The sole reason assigned by the respondents in the impugned orders for denying the compassionate appointment is that the deceased workman was a temporary casual labourer and he was not a regular workman at the time of his death. Since I came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a regular workman, one of the legal heirs of the deceased workman is entitled to get compassionate appointment and the impugned orders declining compassionate appointment are liable to be quashed.
35.A Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited V. Lalitha, reported in 2005 (2) CTC 246, considered similar issue relating to providing of compassionate appointment. The appellant Transport Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to a widow, whose husband served as a Driver in the Transport Corporation from 1979 and he was compulsorily retired on medical ground on 06.12.1995 and he was re-employed as a Mazdoor Trainee by the order dated 06.02.1996 and within a period of four days, thereafter he died on 10.02.1996. She sought compassionate appointment. The Transport Corporation refused compassionate appointment to the widow on the ground that the deceased Mazdoor did not put in one year of service. Challenging the same, she approached this Court. A learned Single Judge allowed her claim. The Transport Corporation filed appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in said judgment reported in 2005 (2) CTC 246 confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and issued direction to the Corporation to provide compassionate appointment to the widow. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of the said judgment in 2005 (2) CTC 246 are exracted hereunder :
2. The respondent is a widow. Her late husband was a driver in the service of the appellant Corporation, who had been appointed in 1979. He had some heart ailment due to which he was compulsorily retired on medical grounds by order dated 6.12.1995. Thereafter, on a representation made by him to the Corporation a settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached under which he was re-employed as a mazdoor trainee by order dated 6.2.1996. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 10.2.1996 at the age of 44 he passed away. He was the only bread-winner of the family and he left behind him his widow (respondent) and two daughters.
3. The Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to the widow (respondent) taking a technical view of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation relied on G.O. Ms. No. 680 Transport Department dated December, 1977 and urged that under the said G.O. the respondent could not get compassionate appointment.
4. We do not agree with this submission. It must be understood that the aforesaid G.O. is a piece of beneficial legislation and hence should be liberally construed. There is no doubt that the respondent's husband had worked in the service of the appellant Corporation for 16 years and thereafter he developed heart ailment and died. Before his death he has been compulsorily retired by order dated 6.12.1995 due to his ailment, but on a representation made by him he was re-employed on 6.2.1996.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on clause 11 of the aforesaid G.O. Clause 11 of the said G.O. states:-
"Dependents of such of those temporary employees who had put in more than 240 days of work in a year before their demise and regularised and confirmed employees are alone eligible for this concession."
6. In our opinion, a liberal interpretation should be put on the aforesaid clause 11.
7. In Transport Corporation of India V. Employees' Insurance Corporation, 2000 (1) SCC 332, (vide paragraphs 27 & 28), the Supreme Court observed that beneficial legislation should be given a liberal and not a technical or narrow interpretation. If two interpretations are possible, then the one in favour of the employee should be preferred.
8. In B.D.Shetty V. CEAT Limited, 2002 (1) SCC 193, (vide paragraph 12) the Supreme Court observed: -
"One must not lose sight of the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provision of subsistence allowance made is intended to serve a definite purpose of sustaining the workman and his family members during the bad time when he is under suspension, pending inquiry. This provision is enacted with a view to ensure social welfare and security. Hence, such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be understood and construed in its proper and correct perspective so as to advance the legislative intention underlying its enactment rather than abolish it. Assuming two views are possible, the one, which is in tune with the legislative intention and furthers the same, should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it."
9. In Secretary, H.S.E.B. V. Suresh, 1999 (3) SCC 601, (vide paragraph 17) the Supreme Court observed: -
"Needless to note at this juncture that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute-book, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. As a matter of fact the law is well settled by this Court and we need not dilate much by reason therefore to the effect that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified. On the contrary, the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would lose its efficacy and contract labour would be left at the mercy of the intermediary."
10. The respondent's husband had no doubt worked for more than 240 days before his demise. In fact he had worked for 16 years. Hence, in our opinion, the respondent (his widow) is entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Consequently WAMP No. 682 of 2005 is also dismissed.
36. Also, applying the judgment of this Court in S.Vijayalakshmi V. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board reported in 2005 (3) L.L.N. 706, referred to in paragraph 19 of this judgment, I am of the view that one of the legal heirs of the deceased workman Jaganathan is entitled to seek compassionate appointment. In that case, while granting terminal benefits, compassionate appointment was denied on the ground that the petitioner therein approached the Court belatedly after 9 years of passing of the order declining compassionate appointment. Paragraph 11 of the judgment in 2005 (3) L.L.N. 706 is extracted hereunder in this regard :
11. So far as the claim regarding appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the matter stands on a different footing. As already noticed, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected long back in 1989. Unlike the payment of family pension, which is considered as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution and which is a continuing right, it cannot be said that there is any fundamental right to claim appointment on compassionate ground. As held by the Supreme Court in several cases, such as Union of India & Others V. Bhagwan Singh [1996 (1) L.L.N. 577] and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others V. Paras Nath [1999 (4) L.L.N. 80], the provision providing for appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable his legal heirs or dependents of the deceased employee to get appointment as they should not suffer due to the loss of earning bread winner of the family. In the present case, the rejection letter was communicated in 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner had remained quiet for about a decade. In such view of the matter, the prayer, so far as appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, is obviously hit by the principles of laches and such relief cannot be granted.
37. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed with the following directions to the respondents,
(i) to pay gratuity to the petitioners,
(ii) to pay family pension to the first petitioner,
(iii) to pay other terminal benefits to the petitioners as per the Rules ; and
(iv) to provide compassionate appointment to any one of the legal heirs of the deceased workman Thiru.Jaganathan.
It is made clear that the above said directions shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
09.09.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes TK/gg To
1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK W.P.NO.23101 OF 2012 09.09.2014