MEENA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the ex parte order by which petitioner 'shusband was dismissed from service on the charge of his absence from duty and further for a direction upon the respondents to give her employment on compassionate ground.

(2.) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass: Petitioner 'shusband, Harishchandra Pandey was permanent employee of the respondents working in Lodna colliery. Petitioner 's husband last went to the colliery to attend his duty on 26.5. 1986 and after duty he did not return to his house and he is missing since then. The petitioner who is the wife reported about the missing of her husband to respondent No 3. When the whereabout of the husband of the petitioner was not known, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for providing her employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner ultimately raised industrial dispute and the matter was referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication being Reference Case No. 99/95. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, after hearing the parties, gave his award on 31.5.2001 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for by her.

(3.) FROM the award it appears that the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication: