Judgment : The petitioner is the wife of one Late G. Sudhakar. He was working as a driver. - Unfortunately, he died on 9.12.1999. The petitioners husbands services were dispensed with by an order dated 22.10.1995. As an industrial dispute was pending, an approval petition was filed by the respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu. The said approval petition was numbered as 139 of 1995 and a notice was issued to the late G. Sudhakar. On contest, the approval petition was rejected by the Tribunal, by an order dated 23.4.1999. 2. Even though, the respondents wanted to prefer an appeal against the said order, for the reasons best known to them they did not file any appeal. The petitioner requested for a compassionate appointment and also settlement of the dues, on account of the death of late. G. Sudhakar. The respondents sent a reply dated 17.10.2003 by stating that after the rejection of the approval petition No. 139 of 1995 they had preferred an appeal. But, the fact of the matter was, even admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, that no such appeal was filed and the orders of the Tribunal become final. The effect of the dismissal of an approval petition is that the workman continues in service as if, there is no order of dismissal. When that is the legal position in the order dated 17.10.2003 it was stated that the Corporation had taken a matter, on appeal. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner made a grievance before the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell about the denial of the compassionate appointment to her daughter on account of the death of her husband. On being directed by the Chief Ministers Cell, the respondent Corporation sent a reply dated 26.8.2002 by stating that the petitioners husband late G. Sudhakar was dismissed from service with effect from 27.10.1995 and as the worker died after the dismissal, his family is not eligible for any employment assistance. 4. Even before this communication, a writ petition was filed for a direction to the petitioners daughter to give employment on compassionate ground, subsequently, the prayer was amended in M.P. No. l of 2006 and this Court allowed the amendment petition on 24.2.2007. 4. Even before this communication, a writ petition was filed for a direction to the petitioners daughter to give employment on compassionate ground, subsequently, the prayer was amended in M.P. No. l of 2006 and this Court allowed the amendment petition on 24.2.2007. By the amendment, the petitioners now seeks for quashing the order dated 26.8.2002 issued by the respondent Corporation and also to provide the petitioners daughter Ms. Geethakumari employment on compassionate ground. 5. I have heard the arguments of Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the records. 6. The reasons given in the impugned order is contrary to the industrial jurisprudence. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that rejection of an approval petition stands on a higher footing than an Award of a Labour Court. If the approval petition filed under Section 32(2) (b) is rejected, the worker is deemed to be in service without there being any further order by an employer. Even though, initially, the Corporation tried to take a stand that the said order was under challenge, it now transpires, its attempt to file any such petition to challenge was given up for the reasons best known to them. 7. It is too late for the respondent Corporation to contend that the worker once dismissed cannot be granted any compassionate employment assistance to his family members. Though technically such a stand may be correct. In the present case, the respondent Corporations attempt to seek approval of the dismissal having not resulted in any finality and the Tribunal having dismissed their approval application. The late Sudhakar was deemed to be in service till the date of his death 9.12.1999. Immediately, the petitioner sent an application for compassionate appointment. The reasons found in the impugned order are unsustainable and not legally valid. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioners daughter Ms. Geetha Kumari for employment on the compassionate employment assistance within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner without fail. 9. The counsel for the respondent states that there is already a waiting list and the petitioner will have to wait for their turn. Geetha Kumari for employment on the compassionate employment assistance within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner without fail. 9. The counsel for the respondent states that there is already a waiting list and the petitioner will have to wait for their turn. This submission cannot be accepted as the petitioners husband had died in the year 1999 and for the last eight years it is the respondent who were dragging the issue on some untenable grounds. Hence the petitioners case must be considered on a priority basis. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. This Court placed on record the excellent service rendered by Mr. T.S.R. Venkataraman as the petitioner is an assisted person supported by the State Legal Aid Services Authority.