- (1.) BY consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D. No.28 of 2001 dated 26.8.2002 on the file of the second respondent/Industrial Tribunal wherein the petitioners have been directed to provide job assistance to R. Lalitha, W/o O.S. Radhakrishnan on compassionate grounds as "Sweeper" as and when vacancy arises and to quash the same. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that one O.S. Radhakrishnan was employed as Commercial Assistant in Chengalpet Electricity Distribution Circle on the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board died on 22.5.1980 while he was in service. He was a member of the first respondent union. After his demise, his wife Lalitha applied for employment on compassionate grounds and her request was rejected by the second petitioner vide his memo dated 3.11.1999. After receipt of this order rejecting her claim, she raised a dispute through the first respondent before the Inspector of Labour for conciliation and as the conciliation proceedings ended in failure, the same was reported to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu, in its G.O. (D) No. 238 (Labour & Employment) Department dated 31.3.2001 referred the issues viz. whether the demand of the union for providing employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on compassionate grounds to Lalitha is justified, for adjudication by the second respondent/Tribunal, and if so, to issue appropriate directions. The said dispute was taken on file by the second respondent/Tribunal in I.D.No. 28 of 2001. Before the second respondent/Industrial Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal), the first respondent/Union filed a claim statement contending that (i) the said employee died while he was in service on 22.5.1980, (ii) his wife made representations dated 16.4.1997, 9.9.1997, 24.9.1999 and 12.11.1999, (iii) the petitioners herein, by letter dated 3.11.1999 rejected her request and (iv) the petitioners herein cannot insist the qualification of a pass in the VIII standard for the post of Sweeper and as such, the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds for the post of Sweeper. In response, the petitioners filed a counter inter alia contending that the employment assistance is given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in shot "the Board") to the dependents of the employees of the Board who died in harness, provided the dependents possess qualification prescribed for the post and the family of the deceased in indigent circumstances and other conditions prescribed for the scheme evolved by the Board to provide employment on compassionate grounds. It was the case of the Board before the Tribunal that the widow of the deceased employe was not possessing the requisite qualification of a pass in the VIII standard and hence, her request was rightly rejected and after the rejection of her claim, she had come forward with the Industrial Dispute through the union which is not a recognized one and does not have representative capacity. M. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act for being referred for adjudication and consequently, the reference made to the Tribunal is illegal and consequently, the award is not sustainable in law. It is his further contention that the Tribunal has failed to see that the wife of the deceased did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant date of her application and therefore, the order of the second petitioner rejecting the claim of the wife of the deceased is strictly in conformity with the rules of the Board. He has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the rulings of the Supreme Court which say that Courts cannot direct any organization to provide employment assistance on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased in deviation of the rules prescribed therefor. It is his earnest submission that the reasoning given by the Tribunal that during pendency of the dispute the wife of the deceased has qualified and as such, she is eligible to be given appointment, is not acceptable as per the Board proceedings as the subsequent passing of the requisite qualification will not entitle her claim for employment assistance.
(3.) VAIDYANATHAN has further argued that the object of providing employment assistance on compassionate grounds is to provide immediate help to the family which is in penury due to the unforeseen death of the breadwinner of the family and since the wife of the deceased employee was able to lead her life till from 1980, it is clear that the family of the deceased is not in need of employment assistance and since the posts of sweeper have been out sourced by the Board, the Board cannot employ the wife of the deceased employee in the post of Sweeper on compassionate grounds. Contending contra, D. Adikesavan, learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the widow of the deceased employee did not approach the Union as a registered body for wage board talks through Memo No. 59987/A3/A-31/2005-1 dated 6.8.2005 and the first respondent union is having right to raise an industrial dispute in existence within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the wife of the deceased employee is having the bona fide for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is his strong contention that there are around 18,000 vacancies available in Regular Worker Establishment Cadres in various branches of the Distribution Circle and the inaction on the part of the petitioners in providing the post of Sweeper to the wife of the deceased for the last 25 years is not justifiable. It is further contended that it is not right on the part of the Board to insist on a pass in the VIII standard for the post of a sweeper which does not have any avenue for promotion. At last, he has strenuously contended that despite the award of the Tribunal to offer the post of Sweeper as and when vacancy arises, the petitioners have not offered employment to the wife of the deceased till the date of the writ petition. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side. ;