Judgment : 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 10. 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. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Commercial Assistant in the petitioner Board and died on 22.5.1980 while he was in service. It is also not in dispute that R. Lalitha is the legal heir of the deceased employee. Thus, the only point for consideration is whether the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to get employment under the scheme of the Board. 11. From a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the widow of the deceased employee presented the petition for appointment for the post of a Sweeper to the Chief Ministers cell on 16.4.1997, an application to the Superintending Engineer on 9.9.1997 and a petition to the Chief Engineer on 24.9.1999. Being unsuccessful, she had also submitted an application with the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 12.11.1999. It is also seen that the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer have sent letters dated 6.9.1993 and 27.2.1988 respectively expressing their willingness to offer the post of Sweeper to the wife of the deceased and in neither of these communications, the prescribed qualification of a pass in the VIII standard has been insisted upon. Though the wife of the deceased employee had not passed the prescribed qualification when she made application to the Chairman of the Board, in course of time, she has passed the prescribed qualification. To substantiate this, the first respondent Union has made a categorical plea that the widow of the deceased had educational qualification and has also produced the relevant exhibits. In this regard, the Tribunal has pointed out that the claim of the application could not be rejected for the simple reason that she was not qualified while she was preferring an application before the concerned authority and holding so, it has directed the Board to offer employment to the wife of the deceased employee for the post of Sweeper as and when vacancy arises. 12. 12. Before proceeding to decide the paramount issue i. e. whether the claim of the wife of the deceased employee in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is justified or not, it would be relevant to refer to some of the decisions in connection with appointment on compassionate grounds and on the point as to how a beneficial legislation should be looked into. 13. The Supreme Court, in its decision reported in the case of Sushma Gosain & Others v. Union of India & others Sushma Gosain & Others v. Union of India & others Sushma Gosain & Others v. Union of India & others AIR 1989 SC 1976 : 1990-I-LLJ 169: (1989) 4 SCC 468 has observed in para 9 as follows at p. 170 of LLJ: 7. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the harship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 14. In the case of Secretary, H. S. E. B. v. Suresh and other reported in Secretary, H. S. E. B. v. Suresh and other reported in Secretary, H. S. E. B. v. Suresh and other reported in AIR 1999 SC 1160 : (1999) 3 SCC 601 : 1999-I-LLJ 1086, on the point of interpreting the beneficial piece of legislation, the Supreme Court has held as under atp. 1092 of LLJ: “16. Needless to note at this juncture that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute-book, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. Needless to note at this juncture that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute-book, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. As a matter of fact, the law is well settled by this Court and we need not dilate much by reason therefore to the effect that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified. On the contrary, the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would lose its efficacy and contract labour would be left at the mercy of the intermediary.” 15. Again, the judgement reported in the case of Transport Corporation of India v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and another Transport Corporation of India v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and another Transport Corporation of India v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and another , 2000-I-LLJ-1: AIR 2000 SC 238 : (2000) 1 (MLJ) 128: (2000) 1 SCC 332 on the point of how a beneficial legislation has to be construed, the Supreme Court has held as under atp.146 of MLJ: “25. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it…” 16. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it…” 16. Similarly, in the case of B. D. Shetty v. Ceat Limited reported B. D. Shetty v. Ceat Limited reported B. D. Shetty v. Ceat Limited reported 2001-II-LLJ-1552: AIR 2001 SC 2953 : (2002) 1 SCC 193 , the Supreme Court has observed as follows atp.1556 of LLJ: “11…One must not lose sight of the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provision of subsistence allowance made is intended to serve a definite purpose of sustaining the workman and his family members during the bad time when he is under suspension, pending inquiry. This provision is enacted with a view to ensure social welfare and security. Hence, such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be understood and construed in its proper and correct perspective so as to advance the legislative intention underlying its enactment rather than abolish it…..” 17. Further, the First Bench of this Court, in its judgment reported in in the case of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited v. Lalitha Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited v. Lalitha Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited v. Lalitha 2005 (2) CTC 246 pertaining to compassionate appointment, had held as under : “The Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to the widow (respondent) taking a technical view of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation relied on G.O.Ms.No. 680 Transport Department dated December, 1977 and urged that under the said G.O., the respondent could not get compassionate appointment. We do not agree with this submission. It must be understood that the aforesaid G.O. is a piece of beneficial legislation and hence should be liberally construed. Thee is no doubt that the respondents husband had worked in the service of the appellant Corporation for 16 years and thereafter, he developed heart ailment and died. Before his death, he has been compulsorily retired by order dated 6.12.1995 due to his aliment, but on a representation made by him, he was re-employed on 6.2.1996.” 18. Thee is no doubt that the respondents husband had worked in the service of the appellant Corporation for 16 years and thereafter, he developed heart ailment and died. Before his death, he has been compulsorily retired by order dated 6.12.1995 due to his aliment, but on a representation made by him, he was re-employed on 6.2.1996.” 18. In the instant case, the wife of the deceased has made her first application on her husbands demise and the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer also have expressed their willingness to offer employment to her as a Sweeper without insisting on any educational qualification. Thus, it is quite presumable that even they were aware that just the ability to read and write English and Tamil is sufficient for a mean post such as a Sweeper. That apart, the widow of the deceased had since possessed the prescribed qualification, though not at the application stage. In that view of the matter and taking cognizance of the principle enunciated in the decisions referred to above, considering the policy of compassionate appointment of the Board in a broader perspective which is intended to benefit the dependents of the deceased and with the avowed object of lessening the sufferings of the bereaved family, I hold that the award of the Tribunal in directing the petitioner Board to offer the post of sweeper to the wife of the deceased as and when vacancy arises, is legally sustainable and there is no infirmity warranting interference of this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction, particularly when the Tribunal was considered the documents marked before it. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is upheld and the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs and the petitioners are directed to implement the award of the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.