THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.No.346 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
03.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11102 of
2002.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the husband of
respondent No.3 was an employee of the appellant/Singareni
Collieries and committed some misconduct during his lifetime. Unfortunately, he expired while in service and compassionate appointment was granted to respondent No.3, who is now aged about 66 years and who is a widow of the deceased employee. The employer started deducting Rs.200/- per month from the salary of respondent No.3 stating that her husband has misappropriated some amount while serving the Singareni Collieries. She has in fact approached the Authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and the petition was allowed on 08.05.2000. A second appeal i.e, S.A.No.2 of 2000 was preferred in the matter and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 16.01.2002. The employer did not leave the widow at that stage and dragged her by filing a writ petition before this court.
When the matter was being argued before this court, a categorical question was asked to Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, that under which provision of law, the employer is recovering the amount from the salary of the 2 widow on the alleged ground that it was misappropriated by her husband. Learned Standing Counsel was fair enough in stating that there is no such provision under the Statute. He further stated that while submitting the application for grant of compassionate appointment, the widow gave an undertaking.
In the considered opinion of this court, a widow, who lost her husband, as there was no other person in the family, gave such undertaking under coercion, as she was desperate in need of a job. Such an undertaking will not come in the way of the widow for the amount which was allegedly misappropriated by her husband. She was being paid wages for the work rendered by her and only because her husband has misappropriated the amount, the employer got no right to recover the same by deducting Rs.200/- per month from her salary. The widow is now 66 years of age and she has attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, this court does not find any reason, keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the case, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 JSU