JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner’s husband was employed as a peon-cum-watchman in the United Industrial Bank Limited and, while working in the erstwhile United Industrial Bank Limited, was retrenched by an order dated 11th January, 1988 by tendering 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. It transpires that the erstwhile Bank was amalgamated with the Allahabad Bank on 30th October, 1989 and the petitioner’s husband also died on 4th August, 1989. The widow raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, being Adjudication Case No. 47 of 1994. The term of the Reference Order is : “Whether the action of the management of the erstwhile United Industrial Bank Limited (since merged with Allahabad Bank), New Delhi in terminating the services of Shiv Kumar Singh, Watchman-cum-Peon (since expired on 28.3.1988) w.e.f. 11.1.1988 was justified? If not, what benefits is his widow entitled to?” 3. The Tribunal found that the petitioner’s husband was a confirmed employee, and consequently, held that the retrenchment procedure provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act could not be adopted. The Tribunal held that the removal of a confirmed workman by way of retrenchment was bad in law. The Tribunal further noticed that since the workman had died, the question of reinstatement did not arise, and therefore, awarded Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. This Award became final and was not challenged by the respondent-Bank or even by the heirs of the deceased. However, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9991 of 2000 praying for the enforcement of the Award and also for a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 26th March, 1991 directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner. 4. Based on the aforesaid direction, the respondent-Bank rejected the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 7th July, 2001 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. 4. Based on the aforesaid direction, the respondent-Bank rejected the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 7th July, 2001 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, her husband was a deemed employee of the respondent-Bank, and therefore, the scheme of the Bank for compassionate appointment became applicable to the petitioner and was required to be followed by the Bank, and that the Bank was required to offer an appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that had the petitioner been alive, the Tribunal having found that the order of removal was bad in law, would have granted reinstatement, in which case, the respondent-Bank would have reinstated the petitioner’s husband in service. Since the petitioner’s husband has died, it could be presumed that he was deemed to be in the service of the Bank, and consequently, the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, was entitled for an appointment on compassionate basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the compensation of Rs. 5000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, and the retrenchment compensation, etc., as tendered by the Bank, at the time of issuing the retrenchment order, has not as yet been paid by the respondent-Bank, and therefore, a mandamus should also be issued to the respondent-Bank commanding them to pay the aforesaid amount along with the interest. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submitted that the Bank’s liability was only confined to the absorption of such persons who were working at the time when the order of amalgamation was passed. Since the service of the petitioner’s husband had already been terminated prior to the amalgamation of the erstwhile Bank with the present Bank and his name was not on the rolls of employees, consequently, the respondent-Bank was under no obligation to consider the petitioner’s application for an appointment on compassionate ground. Since the service of the petitioner’s husband had already been terminated prior to the amalgamation of the erstwhile Bank with the present Bank and his name was not on the rolls of employees, consequently, the respondent-Bank was under no obligation to consider the petitioner’s application for an appointment on compassionate ground. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner raised a claim before the Tribunal challenging not only the validity and legality of the order of termination, passed against her husband, but, also prayed that in view of the death of her husband, an appointment on compassionate ground should also be given by the respondent-Bank to her. 7. The Tribunal while considering all aspects of the matter, awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/-, and the relief of compassionate appointment was not granted by the Tribunal and the said Award having become final, the same relief cound not be raised by the petitioner again in the present writ petition. The learned Counsel further submitted that the retrenchment compensation, etc., amounting to Rs. 6664.10 and Rs. 3998.46 was sent by post at the last known address of the petitioners husband by the erstwhile Bank, which came back undelivered, and that, the information was also sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking his help. Further, pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was again sent by a Bankers Cheque at the address of the petitioner, which also came back undelivered. The learned Counsel submitted that the respondent Bank is willing to pay the amount to the petitioner as per the directions of the Court, and would remit the amount, if the correct address is supplied by the petitioner. 8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of compassionate appointment from the respondent Bank. The service of the petitioners husband was retrenched by the erstwhile Bank. The petitioners husband did not challenge the order of retrenchment. An industrial dispute was raised in the year 1994 by the petitioner. The Tribunal gave an Award in the year 1997, holding that the removal of the petitioners husband by the erstwhile Bank was bad in law, and since the petitioners husband had died, the question of reinstatement did not arise. The Tribunal found it fit only to award a sum of Rs. The Tribunal gave an Award in the year 1997, holding that the removal of the petitioners husband by the erstwhile Bank was bad in law, and since the petitioners husband had died, the question of reinstatement did not arise. The Tribunal found it fit only to award a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation. This Court has also perused the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The relief claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was not only with regard to the validity and legality of the order of retrenchment, but also for the payment of the salary from the date of the termination till the date of the death of her husband and for awarding a compensation of Rs. 1/- lac and also to provide employment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of the Bank. The relevant relief with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground is quoted hereunder : “..... As Allahabad Bank has a scheme of providing employment to one of the heirs of the employee who dies in harness this Tribunal may also order Allahabad Bank to take the widow of late Sri Shiv Kumar Singh in the service of the Bank.........” 9. It is a settled law that the Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Law, has wide powers and while deciding the dispute referred for adjudication, has powers to mould the relief as per the service conditions but could also frame new contract of service between the management and the workman. The relief of employment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of the Bank was within the domain of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had such powers to mould the relief and could have granted a relief for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, the Tribunal considered it fit to award only a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement, damages and employment on compassionate ground. This Award has become final and has not been challenged in the last 10 years. Instead, the petitioner had filed a writ petition for the enforcement of that Award. The High Court, however, directed the respondent-Bank to consider her claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The High Court, however, directed the respondent-Bank to consider her claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Consequently, the relief claimed in the present writ petition cannot be granted. However, under the residuary clause, namely, any other suitable writ, order or direction of this Hon’ble Court as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, a relief is hereby moulded and given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Admittedly, the retrenchment notice and pay in lieu of the notice, as tendered by the erstwhile Bank on 11th January, 1988, has not been paid to the petitioner till date. Similarly, an award of compensation of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the Tribunal in the year 1997 has also not been paid so far. The total amount comes to Rs. 15,662.56. If a reasonable rate of interest is calculated on the retrenchment compensation from 1988 till today, that is, for 20 years, as well as the interest on compensation awarded by the Tribunal from 1997 till date plus cost of the litigation, in my opinion, a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards interest and costs would be sufficient. Consequently, the Court directs the respondent Allababad Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 40,662.56 by means of a Bank Draft drawn in favour of the petitioner, which shall be prepared within 6 weeks from today, and will be produced before this Court on 29th of September, 2008. 12. Even though this writ petition is being disposed of with the aforesaid observations, the Registry will ensure the listing of this case before this Court on 29th September, 2008. Certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week from today. ————