VINEET KOTHARI - (1.) THE petitioner No.1 claiming to be adopted daughter of deceased workman Narpat Singh, aged about 26 years and Smt. Antar Kanwar, mother of the deceased workman Narpat Singh, aged 65 years, have filed the present writ petition in this Court on 21.7.2008 seeking implementation and payment of benefits in accordance with awards of the Industrial Tribunal passed in favour of workman Narpat Singh vide Annex.1 dtd.10.5.1999, Annex.2 dtd.16.11.2000 and Annex.3 dtd.6.12.2003.
(2.) While in the first award Annex.1 dtd.10.5.1999, the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur held the petitioner workman Narpat Singh entitled to regular pay scale of Rs.750 -940 for a period from 15.8.1996 to 24.12.1997, in the second award dtd.16.11.2002 finding his alleged termination w.e.f. 24.12.1997 as illegal, the Industrial Tribunal awarded reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. In the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act, by 3rd award Annex.3 dtd.6.12.2003, the Industrial Tribunal directed the respondent - Department to make payment of Rs.42,744/ - with interest @9% per annum from 28.1.2002 till the date of payment. The workman Narpat Singh unfortunately expired on 25.1.2004 soon after the 3rd award under Section 33C(2) of the Act was passed in his favour on 6.12.2003 after a few days. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Girish Joshi therefore, prayed that besides benefit in pursuance of Annex.3 award dtd.6.12.2003 amounting to Rs.42,744/ -, the benefits flowing from first two awards also deserves to be paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the present two petitioners filed the present writ petition for claiming benefits flowing from all these three awards.
(3.) THE respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and inter alia have disputed the claim of the compassionate appointment claimed by the petitioner No.1 Kiran Rathore vide application Annex.6 dtd.26.2.2004 disputing even the adoption under the purported adoption -deed Annex.R/2 dtd.20.12.2003 just about one month prior to his death on 25.1.2004. The respondents have also submitted that the petitioner No.1 Smt. Kiran Rathore since got married on 15.4.2005 and in the copy of marriage invitation card produced as Annex.R/1, she has been shown to be daughter of one Bhanwar Singh and not deceased workman Narpat Singh. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submitted that as far as case of compassionate appointment to be given to the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the said claim cannot be considered in accordance with the relevant Rules of 1996. He, however, submitted that the petitioner No.2, mother of the deceased workman may be entitled to be benefits to the extent determined and directed to be paid under Section 33C (2) of the Act vide Annex.3 award dtd.6.12.2003 amounting to Rs.42,744/ -.;