- (1.) SMT . Maya, the petitioner, has laid this writ petition for craving the under mentioned reliefs: (a) That the respondent may be directed to provide employment to the petitioner. (b) That she may not be evicted from the quarter in which she is living at present with her three minor children. (c) That she may be allowed the back wages from the date of death of her husband i.e. 06.05.2001. (d) Costs of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. (e) Any other relief which is in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice may be allowed.
(2.) THE foundation of claiming the aforesaid reliefs, as adumbrated from the facts narrated in the writ petition, is that husband of the petitioner, Om Prakash, was in employment of the respondent company since 1984. While serving the respondent as regular employee "Mazdoor", Shri Om Prakash Harijan died in harness on 6th of May 2001. As per the petitioner, Late Om Prakash was allotted residential accommodation in the form of Quarter No.A-47/1 by the respondent for dwelling. After death of Om Prakash, who was the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds vide her application dated 10th of March 2002 at Rajpura Dariba office of the respondent. After receiving the application, the petitioner was conveyed that she could inquire about further action in the month of June, however, up to June 2002 when no heed was paid to her application, she again visited Rajpura Dariba office. On approach to the said office, the petitioner was intimated that requisite information in this connection could be divulged by the Head Office at Udaipur. Thereafter, as per the version of the petitioner, she contacted the concerned officer at Head Office, Udaipur, where she was informed that the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been filed after three months from the date of death of her husband, therefore, the said application is not worth consideration. The petitioner has further asserted that the concerned officer of the Head Office also advised her to file fresh application with requisite explanation of the delay and thereupon yet another application was submitted by her on 18th of June 2002 for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Highlighting her educational qualification as Secondary School Examination, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that she is unemployed and therefore unable to maintain the bereaved family consisting of three members. Adverting to the residential accommodation in the form of quarter allotted to her late husband by the respondent company, the petitioner has categorically averred that the respondent company has deducted Rs.30,000 from PF amount of her husband against the rent of the quarter although no such deduction from the PF amount is permissible. The petitioner has also raised her grievances against the respondent in the petition by alleging that the respondent company is harassing her and compelling her to vacate the quarter. Requisite notice for eviction issued under the Rajasthan Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act dated 3rd of March 2002 is also annexed with the writ petition. Staking her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner has referred to Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between management of the respondent company and the workers' union under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Laying specific emphasis on term No.5.1 of the settlement, the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent is bound to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. Although the petitioner has taken shelter of the Memorandum of Settlement, but neither copy of the Settlement was placed on record, nor material particulars about the said settlement were incorporated in the pleadings. Asserting the financial hardship of the bereaved family due to the death of bread winner, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that denial of appointment to her is unjust and so also the action of the respondent company in her eviction from the quarter, which was allotted to her late husband.
(3.) AT the threshold, in response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the respondent company preliminary reply was submitted on 1st of April 2002. In the preliminary reply, the respondent company has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent has asserted with full emphasis that it does not fall within the ambit of definition of "other authorities" envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition against it is not tenable. With a view to clarify the position, the respondent has pleaded in the return that earlier respondent was a Government of India enterprise but recently Government of India has disinvested 26% equity of the respondent company and the entire management of the company has been transferred to strategic partner (S.P.) M/s. Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'SOVL') on 11th April 2002. In support of this assertion, the respondent has also placed on record Memorandum dated 15th of May 2002 issued by the Government of India as Annex.R/1 making it crystal clear that now the respondent company is no longer a Public Sector Undertaking. Substantiating its stand that the respondent company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, in the reply, the respondent has indicated that strategic partner i.e. SOVL now owns 45.90% capital of the company and out of eleven Board of Directors of the company, six belong to SOVL and only five Directors belong to Government of India. On the anvil of these facts, the respondent company has emphatically asserted in the preliminary reply that the Government of India does not have a deep and pervasive control over functioning of the company.;