- (1.) The petitioner is the State owned Transport Corporation. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an order of the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, dated 20.5.2011 in rejecting the approval petition No. 295 of 2003 filed by the petitioner Corporation. It is seen from the records that the petitioner Corporation had terminated the service of the second respondent vide order dated 10.3.2003. The second respondent was accused of committing misconduct in terms of the Standing Orders 24(8) and 24(40). It was alleged that the second respondent was working as a Clerk. Her father was working as a Driver in the Corporation and he died in harness on 16.1.1975. He left behind him his wife Sarada and 3 daughters including the second respondent and 4 sons. As per the extant rules, if a person dies in harness, one of his legal heirs is entitled to have compassionate appointment. At the time of death of her father, the second respondent was only 6 years old. Subsequently, she had completed SSLC and after attaining the age of 18 years, she had applied for an employment assistance on compassionate grounds. The other legal heirs gave no objection letter and appropriate forms were given to her on 16.4.1988. Though the application was dated 20.4.1988, the appointment order was given to her only on 31.12.1997, i.e., after a period of 10 years. After the appointment, she got married to one Sonaimuthu on 26.8.1998. She has been working in the corporation for 4 years. But it was alleged that the second respondent was not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 680, Transport Department, dated 28.12.1977, wherein only an unmarried daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment. It was also alleged that she had suppressed the information of getting married even two years before the date of appointment and was having two children.
(2.) The second respondent had denied the said charge. An enquiry was directed to be conducted by one retired Sub Judge. The second respondent did not examine any person. The Enquiry Officer on examining the witnesses by the management, gave an enquiry report. On the basis of the enquiry report and on the basis of the records, she was terminated from service by the order dated 10.3.2003. The charge that was levelled against her was that she had suppressed the information about her marriage and also having children and that she got appointment on 31.12.1997. Since at the relevant time, a conciliation was pending relating to the service condition of the workers of the petitioner management, an approval petition was filed by the petitioner corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 10.3.2003. The said approval petition was registered as Approval Petition No. 295 of 2003. Notice was sent to the second respondent. The second respondent has filed a counter statement, dated 19.2.2005. The defence taken by the second respondent was that as the application for compassionate appointment was made on 20.4.1988, she was not disqualified even at the time of filing of the application. The subsequent marriage will not invalidate her application.
(3.) The authority after hearing both sides, by the impugned order dated 20.5.2011, had rejected the approval petition. The authority found that before termination, the appointing authorities should have satisfied themselves about the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased employee before appointment is offered. Therefore, terminating the services after 5 years after the appointment was illegal and contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 16541 of 2003, dated 23.7.2008 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Tiwari's case, dated 6.9.2001. The authority also found that they have not produced the relevant G.O. referred to in Exhibit P-8.;