M/S.The Singareni Coop Central ... vs The Appellate Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 3616 Tel

  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

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