JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition was filed by C. Karunakaran seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue order in his favour for regular absorption as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on par with similarly placed employees. 2. (i) Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was employed as Contract Labour in Royapuram, North Project Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle from 1982. He was electrocuted along with another co-worker Sri. Shanmugam on 12.6.1991 while working in an electric post. As a result, he fell down and suffered injury in his left hand and both eyes. However, when both the petitioner and the co-worker were taken to the nearby Kilpauk Hospital, unfortunately the co-worker Sri. Shanmugam died on the way. In the meanwhile, Justice Khalid Committee was appointed for identification of contract labourers. After completion of the process, Justice Khalid Committee submitted a report. On the basis of the report, the Chief Engineer/Personnel, Chennai had furnished a list of 116 contract labourers to conduct interview for verification of the genuineness of the contract labourers by the Superintending Engineer, Chennai, West duly showing guidelines and the interview was conducted on 27.2.1994. Since the petitioner was engaged as contract labour from 1982 onwards in the Electricity Board, due to the accident he was unable to attend the interview even though his name was found in the list and called for interview. However, after recovery from injuries, when he approached the second respondent for regular absorption, he was not given proper reply. But, surprisingly, it was found that in the name of the petitioner, one P. Bhaskaran appeared to have attended the interview with the help of CITU union making use of the petitioner’s absence and got regular absorption and was posted under the control of the Superintending Engineer, West Annanagar. Therefore, the petitioner immediately made a complaint to the concerned authorities. As no action was taken, he again filed a complaint to the Vigilance Department. On the basis of the complaint, one K.R. Vittal Raman D.S.P. (TNEB) conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the petitioner is the true and genuine person, he should be given employment since another person has got employment in the name of the petitioner by impersonation. As no action was taken, he again filed a complaint to the Vigilance Department. On the basis of the complaint, one K.R. Vittal Raman D.S.P. (TNEB) conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the petitioner is the true and genuine person, he should be given employment since another person has got employment in the name of the petitioner by impersonation. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when admittedly the petitioner was working as contract labour from 1982 he suffered accident while he was working in an electric post along with one co-worker Shanmugam after his co-worker died in the electrocution, he also suffered immobilization. As a result, he was not able to attend the interview. However, in his name, when another person-P. Bhaskaran got employment by impersonation, the petitioner should be considered atleast on the recommendation made by the vigilance officer. (ii) Further, the learned counsel stated that when several representations were made by the petitioner for regular absorption as per Justice Khalid Committee recommendation, the respondents had not accepted the requests of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Officer-I, Kuralagam in Petition No.138/2004. However, the respondents did not co-operate. As a result, the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 proved to be ineffective. In view of that the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue suitable orders to the petitioner for regular absorption as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on par with similarly placed employees. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent admitting the fact that when the petitioner worked as a contract labourer he was electrocuted along with the co-worker. While the co-worker died, the petitioner suffered major injury. As a result, he was unable to attend the interview held on 27.12.1994. However, in the meanwhile, one P. Bhaskaran having impersonated in the name of the petitioner with forged certificates, obtained an order of appointment as Helper on 4.7.1995. Subsequently, when a vigilance enquiry was ordered to find out the irregularities made with the help of Board officials, namely, Mr. However, in the meanwhile, one P. Bhaskaran having impersonated in the name of the petitioner with forged certificates, obtained an order of appointment as Helper on 4.7.1995. Subsequently, when a vigilance enquiry was ordered to find out the irregularities made with the help of Board officials, namely, Mr. K. Palanivelu, Foremen-II, Thiru S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, who were the office bearers of the CITU Trade Union, the vigilance enquiry also revealed that they were responsible for impersonation and pursuant to the registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.630/2000 for the offence under section 416, 663, 468, 108 of I.P.C. the 4th respondent and other officials were arrested. On further examination, it was found that the petitioner has also committed malpractice in getting entry into the Board by taking into service of the person who impersonated him and therefore, his claim cannot be accepted. It was further stated that when he raised conciliation proceedings before the Commissioner of Labour, Kuralagam requesting employment, the Commissioner sent a failure report on 13.09.2004 under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as against that, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking regular absorption as Helper, therefore, he pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. (i) Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as a contract labour in Royapuram, North Project Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle from 1982. While he was working in the electric post along with his co-worker Mr. Shanmugam on 12.6.1991 they were electrocuted. As a result, both of them fell down and suffered major injuries. However, when the petitioner was able to recover with immobilitation in spite of major injuries in his left hand and both eyes, his co-worker died on his way to hospital. In view of his immobilitation caused by the electrocution while on duty, although Justice Khalid Committee found him as one of the contract labourers and called for interview held on 27.12.1994 for absorption, the petitioner was unable to participate in the interview due to his immobilitation. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent secured employment by impersonation by forging some of the certificates with the help of some board officers, namely, K. Palanivelu, Foremen-II, S.Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector who were the office bearers of the CITU trade union. Subsequently, when a complaint was made, the vigilance Department also conducted an enquiry. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent secured employment by impersonation by forging some of the certificates with the help of some board officers, namely, K. Palanivelu, Foremen-II, S.Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector who were the office bearers of the CITU trade union. Subsequently, when a complaint was made, the vigilance Department also conducted an enquiry. On completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance cell also submitted a report stating that the 4th respondent by impersonating in the name of the petitioner has unduly secured employment with the help of the officials of the Board and further recommended for absorption of the petitioner in the year 2000 itself. Moreover, when the petitioner was immobilized due to accident suffered by him, when he was electrocuted on 12.6.1991 and the charge of impersonation has also led to the framing of charges against Palanivelu and Kalyanam and the departmental proceedings initiated on the said charges also proved and punishments were also imposed by the Electricity Board, this court fails to understand as to how the petitioner can be denied employment till now. (ii) Adding fuel to fire, when the 4th respondent who was also found to have impersonated has been given employment and also presently working, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 who denied employment to the petitioner. Accordingly, this court by taking note of the peculiar circumstances that the petitioner suffered electrocution while on duty when he was working in an electric post on 12.6.1991, and as a result, he was unable to appear for the interview held on 27.12.1994 and the 4th respondent who impersonated in the name of the petitioner has been given employment, is of the view that the proper course would be to absorb the petitioner on regular basis as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, this Court, without standing on any hyper technical issue, directs the respondents 1,2, and 3 to absorb the petitioner as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, from the date of appointment of the 4th respondent, namely, 04.7.1995, along with continuity of service, without backwages even though the petitioner who suffered electrocution in an electric post on 12.6.1991 while in service should have been absorbed on compassionate ground which was denied unfairly. 5. Accordingly, W.P.No.31464/2005 is allowed. No costs.