Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 460 (CHH)

Yamuna Bai Dongare v. Prafull Bhai

2014-12-15

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2014
ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This petition was filed by petitioner - Yamuna Dongare, who was working with respondent employer in their factory. Under a disciplinary action taken against the deceased-petitioner, she was terminated from service w.e.f. 14th January, 1995. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of dismissal and gave the employer an option either to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the employee without reinstatement or reinstate the employee without back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal because even though the Appellate Authority found that the charges were vague and there was not enough evidence to sustain charges and impose extreme punishment of dismissal from service, taking into consideration the admission of the deceased employee, the impugned order has been passed giving option to the employer either to reinstate without back wages or pay a wholesome compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. He submits that once a finding was recorded that the inquiry was not proper, the employer could not be left with any option, but an order of reinstatement ought to have been passed. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the deceased employee had accepted the order passed by the Appellate Authority. As per the option given to the employer, the deceased employee was offered Rs. 10,000/- as an amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement which the employee accepted and it is only, thereafter, this writ petition has been filed. He submits that the employee died during the pendency of petition and, therefore, in any case, no reinstatement can now take place and as the compensation, as ordered by the Appellate Authority, has already been paid, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any further relief. 3. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of petition employee namely-Yamuna Dongare died. An application on 19.9.1998 seeking condonation of delay in filing writ petition filed by the deceased petitioner shows that amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- offered to her was accepted due to her own domestic circumstances. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the amount of compensation offered under the impugned order to the deceased petitioner was accepted by her before filing the writ petition. 10,000/- offered to her was accepted due to her own domestic circumstances. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the amount of compensation offered under the impugned order to the deceased petitioner was accepted by her before filing the writ petition. Writ petition was filed before this court only after accepting the amount of compensation on 19.9.1998. Moreover, during pendency of the petition, petitioner-employee died. Therefore, no reinstatement can be ordered at this stage. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid subsequent development, no relief can be granted to the legal representatives of deceased employee. The petition is therefore dismissed.