ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, perused the records. 2. It is an undisputed fact that, one Mr. Veerappa S/o Somappa Kumbar was appointed as a conductor by the respondents in the year 1986 in their institution. Subsequently due to his unauthorized absent, a departmental enquiry was held and he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service. 3. The said order was called in question before the Labour Court in K.I.D. No. 41/1999. The order of dismissal was set aside by the Labour Court vide orders dated 30.12.2005 and the Labour Court has reinstated the employee with minimum basic. 4. The said order of the Labour Court was called in question by the 1st respondent herein, in W.P. No. 18559/2006 (LK). Vide order dated 02.02.2012, this court has dismissed the said writ petition confirming the order of the Labour Court. 5. Due to death of the said Veerappa, it appears, the petitioners claiming themselves as legal heirs of deceased Veerappa have made an application for providing compassionate appointment to any of the member of the family. The said representation came to be rejected vide orders dated 16.05.2012, which is impugned in this writ petition. Wherein the respondents have rejected the said application on the ground that the said Veerappa was dismissed from service, therefore no compassionate appointment can be provided to any of the legal representatives of dismissed employee of the respondents. 6. On careful perusal of the orders impugned, it does not disclose as to whether the respondents have applied their mind so far as reinstatement of said Veerappa by the Labour Court with minimum basic as a conductor and the subsequent dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents, challenging the order of the Labour Court. 7. It is seen that, the reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court has been confirmed by this court which indicates that the said Veerappa continued to be in service with the respondent. 8. Under the above said circumstances, the reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is not proper and correct. Therefore, the said application requires to be reconsidered by the respondents in accordance with law. Hence the following: ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. Consequently the order/communication in No. VaaKaRaSa: BeVi:Sibbandi: Nemaka/ 1064 dated 16.05.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed. 3. Therefore, the said application requires to be reconsidered by the respondents in accordance with law. Hence the following: ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. Consequently the order/communication in No. VaaKaRaSa: BeVi:Sibbandi: Nemaka/ 1064 dated 16.05.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to reconsider the request made by the 2nd petitioner vide Annexures-B & C dated 22.08.2006 and 16.02.2012 in accordance with law within 4 months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.