ORDER : Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manvendra Reddy appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty for the respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working as driver in the Respondent-Corporation since 1985. That the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Respondent-Corporation on the allegations of unauthorized absence, as such the husband of the petitioner Sri. Malleshi raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No.162/2006. During the said proceedings before the Labour Court, workman died. The legal representatives of the deceased workman were permitted to come on record. The Labour Court allowed the claim petition setting aside the order of dismissal, directing the Respondent to pay the terminal benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. It transpires that the petitioner gave representations to the Respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of death of her husband. The Respondent-Corporation issued an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner and her children are not entitled to be taken into service on compassionate grounds. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Respondent-Corporation has wrongly interpreted the order of Labour Court. It is clear from the order of the Labour Court in as much as the claim made by the petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds that the legal representative of deceased workman, sought appointment for legal representative No.3 on compassionate ground. It was observed by the Labour Court that the Court cannot direct the management to take the legal representative of petitioner No.3 on compassionate ground; the management has to follow the Regulations to appoint any person on compassionate ground and in case the legal representatives of the deceased workman desire, they may apply before the management and in case regulations or rules permit, the management may take one of the legal representative on compassionate ground. This vital aspect was not considered by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment of petitioner’s son Sri. Chandrasekhar on compassionate grounds. 4. It was contended that the petitioner’s son is entitled to an appointment under the compassionate grounds in terms of the Circulate No.839, dated 09.10.1991 of the Respondent-Corporation. This vital aspect was not considered by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment of petitioner’s son Sri. Chandrasekhar on compassionate grounds. 4. It was contended that the petitioner’s son is entitled to an appointment under the compassionate grounds in terms of the Circulate No.839, dated 09.10.1991 of the Respondent-Corporation. It was mandatory for the Corporation to examine the eligibility of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Regulations and Rules and not interpreting wrongly, the order passed by the Labour Court. 5. In furtherance of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in Christina Vs. Management of KSRTC, ILR 1995 Kar 422. 6. Learned counsel Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty appearing for Respondent-Corporation heavily placing reliance on the operative portion of the order of the Labour Court contended that the Labour Court has categorically held that the first party is not legal representative of the deceased workman and is/are not entitled for backwages and any other reliefs prayed in the claim petition, except the terminal benefits. The petitioner has not challenged the said order of Labour Court, which has reached finality. In terms of the order of the Labour Court, no legal representative of deceased workman, are entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the same, no exception can be found with the endorsement impugned herein in rejecting the claim of the petitioner’s son. 7. Adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the legal representatives of the deceased workman got amended the prayer column of the claim petition, in the proceedings before the Labour Court, sought to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent and prayed to order for an appointment to petitioner No.3 therein/son of deceased workman on compassionate grounds. 8. In para-15 of the order of the Labour Court, it was categorically observed that such a prayer cannot be granted in the proceedings before the Labour Court and it is for the legal representatives of the deceased workman to apply before the management and if the regulations and rules permit, the management may take one of the legal representative on compassionate ground. Having observed so in the operative portion of the order, it was held that the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent-Corporation is set aside and the Respondent- Corporation shall pay the terminal benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. Malleshi within 8 weeks from the date of award coming into force on its publication. However, it is observed that first party is not entitled for backwages and any other reliefs claimed in the petition, except terminal benefits. 9. It is hardly required to be stated that an order has to be read in whole. Words, lines and paragraphs cannot be read in isolation. The entire reading of the order of the Labour Court as a whole, indicates that the Labour Court observed that the legal representatives of the deceased workman are at liberty to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds before the management and if such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the management in accordance with Regulations and Rules and any one of the legal representative of the deceased workman may be provided with an appointment on compassionate ground. This observation is lost sight of, by the Respondent-Corporation only placing reliance on the operative portion of the order, which cannot be countenanced. 10. Indisputably, in terms of orders passed by the Labour Court, petitioner’s son Sri. Chandrasekhar has filed application before the Respondent-Corporation seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds and this application ought to have been considered by the Respondent-Corporation in terms of Regulations and Rules of the Corporation and not rejecting the same, on the wrong interpretation of the order of the Labour Court. 11. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to the Judgment of this Court, wherein, in the context of the widow of a deceased workman, challenging the order of punishment of her husband shortly before the death of her husband almost on his death bed, held thus:- “5. The solitary ground on which the Corporation has refused to consider the application submitted on behalf of the son is that the petitioner’s husband was no longer in employment on the date of his death i.e., 9.3.1993. The solitary ground on which the Corporation has refused to consider the application submitted on behalf of the son is that the petitioner’s husband was no longer in employment on the date of his death i.e., 9.3.1993. By virtue of the order of removal from service having been set aside, it will have to be deemed that he was still an employee on 9.3.1993, which is the date on which he died and the application submitted on behalf of his son will therefore qualify for consideration. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the application in question strictly in keeping with the Rules and bearing in mind principles of fairness and to take a decision with regard to the same within an outer limit of two months from this date.” 12. The aforesaid order of this Court fortify the view taken in the present petition. Accordingly, Respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner and her son at Annexures-B&C to the Writ Petition. The Respondent- Corporation shall consider the applications filed by the petitioner and her son, adhering to the Regulations and Rules, bearing in mind the principles of fairness and a decision shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.