ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The widow of the deceased workman/M. Chokkappa, is before this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 29.01.2014 as per Annexure-A passed by the respondent Corporation to appoint the petitioner's son on compassionate grounds, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was working as a driver in the respondent Corporation. On certain allegations of misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 17.12.2004. Thereafter, he died on 14.12.2006. The legal representatives of the deceased workman i.e., the petitioner and her children raised industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('Act' for short) for adjudication. The Labour Court, considering the entire material on record, by award dated 15.02.2010, held that the disciplinary authority was not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal and the same was substituted by punishment of withholding of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The tendency of continuity of service was granted to the deceased workman from the date of dismissal up to the date of his death. The legal representatives of the deceased were held entitled for the statutory benefits consequent upon the death of deceased KSRTC servant. 3. The said award passed by the Tribunal was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 19756/2010. This court after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 13.01.2011, modified the award passed by the Labour Court levying penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and holding that the continuity of service is only for the limited purpose of retiral benefits and in all other aspects, the impugned award remains intact and undisturbed. The Corporation by its order dated 25.04.2011, Annexure-D, implemented the order passed by this Court. 4. Thereafter, on 27.12.2013, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment to her son under the provisions of the Regulations governing the Corporation. The Corporation, considering the application, by the impugned endorsement dated 29.01.2014, rejected the application on the ground that there is no direction by the High Court for providing appointment on compassionate grounds and the only direction was to withhold one annual increment with cumulative effect and to provide continuity of service only for the limited purpose of retiral benefits, and therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to her son. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner workman vehemently contended that the Corporation has failed to understand the spirit of the award passed by the Labour Court who modified the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently remodified by this Court withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect providing continuity of service only for the limited purpose of retiral benefits. Therefore, the Corporation was not justified in issuing the impugned endorsement and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel further contended that it is settled position of law that once dismissal order is set-aside by modification, the employee is deemed to be in employment upto the date of his death. In view of the death, the legal representatives are entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and there is no impediment for the Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. Same has not been done. In support of his contention, learned counsel sought to rely on the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mamatha and another v. The Managing Director & another in WP No.38902-903/2012 dated 12.01.2016 wherein it is observed that when continuity of service has been granted after setting aside the order of termination, the workman will have to be deemed to have been remained in service as on the date of his death. If that be the position, the relief of compassionate appointment, if all other conditions under the Regulations are satisfied will arise for consideration. Accordingly, this Court directed to reconsider the application seeking compassionate appointment. 8. Learned counsel also relied on the unreported decision in the case of V. Charan Raj & another v. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, in WP No. 47147/2013 dated 12.03.2014 to the effect that when the punishment order was modified by the Tribunal to one imposing minor punishment, there was no termination. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compassionate appointment. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compassionate appointment. With regard to delay in not filing the application, learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanamma v. The Chief Personal Manager, BMTC Central office, Bangalore, reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4123 and sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order passed by the Corporation. 9. Per contra, Smt. H. R. Renuka, learned counsel for the Corporation, sought to justify the impugned endorsement issued by the Corporation and strenuously contended that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.12.2004 and he died on 14.12.2006. During his lifetime, he did not challenge the order of dismissal. Upon his death, his legal representatives challenged the order of dismissal which was modified by this court by levying penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and continuity of service only for the limited purpose of retiral benefits. Therefore, petitioner's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied on an unreported decision of this Court in WP No.22675/2015 dated 14.11.2016 in the case of Ganesh v. KSRTC to the effect that, the object and purpose of providing job on compassionate ground is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Admittedly, in the present case, the husband of the petitioner died on 14.12.2006 and application for compassionate appointment is presented in the year 2013, and therefore, sought to justify the impugned action of the Corporation and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as driver in the respondent corporation and was dismissed on 17.12.2004 on certain charges and died on 14.12.2006. It is also not in dispute that the workman had not challenged the said dismissal order till his death. Upon his death, the legal representatives raised dispute in reference No.22/2009 on the file of the II Addl. It is also not in dispute that the workman had not challenged the said dismissal order till his death. Upon his death, the legal representatives raised dispute in reference No.22/2009 on the file of the II Addl. Labour court, Bengaluru, who, after hearing both the parties, by the award dated 15.02.2010, set-aside the punishment of dismissal and substituted it by punishment of withholding of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and continuity of service was granted to the deceased from the date of dismissal upto the date of his death. It is undisputed fact that the said award was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in WP No. 19756/2010. On 13.01.2011, this Court remodified the award passed by the Labour Court levying penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and continuity of service for the limited purpose of retiral benefits. It is also undisputed fact that in pursuance of the modification made by the Labour Court and remodified by this Court, the Corporation has implemented the orders passed by this Court and granted the benefits to which the workman was entitled. 11. It is undisputed fact that on 27.12.2013, the petitioner made an application to the Corporation for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. The Corporation, by the impugned endorsement dated 29.01.2014, rejected the application mainly on the ground that there is no order passed by this Court in WP No. 19756/2010 directing for appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate grounds. The Corporation, while passing the impugned order, has not stated as to why the petitioner's son is not entitled to compassionate appointment and reasons are not properly assigned, except observing that the award is modified levying penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and continuity of service is only for the limited purpose of retiral benefits and all other aspects in the impugned award remain intact and undisturbed. Therefore, there is no specific order passed by the High Court for providing compassionate appointment. 12. Though the learned counsel for the parties relied on several judgments in support of their contentions, the fact remains that the respondent has to consider the petitioner's application dated 27.12.2013 for compassionate appointment in terms of the Circular issued by the Corporation from time to time in respect of compassionate appointment. 12. Though the learned counsel for the parties relied on several judgments in support of their contentions, the fact remains that the respondent has to consider the petitioner's application dated 27.12.2013 for compassionate appointment in terms of the Circular issued by the Corporation from time to time in respect of compassionate appointment. The same has not been done in the present case, except observing that there is no direction from this Court for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. 13. Without adverting to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel, it is suffice to direct the Corporation to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 14. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 29.01.2014 issued by the Corporation is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Corporation for fresh consideration of the application dated 27.12.2013 in terms of the Circular issued by the Corporation from time to time with regard to compassionate appointment and in accordance with law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. 15. All contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the competent authority and competent authority shall take into consideration the objection and respective document and judgments and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.