THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10326 of 2010 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name K.Damodar, was employed in Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short ‘the Company”). He died on 11.12.1991 while in service. According to the schemes formulated by the Company, the widow of an employee, who died while in service, shall be entitled to be paid Monthly Monetary Compensation (M.M.C.) of Rs.2,000/-. In addition to that, a member of the family shall be entitled to be provided with employment on compassionate grounds. The son of the petitioner was a minor at the relevant point of time. The Company extended the benefit of M.M.C. for about one year and thereafter, her son was provided with employment. This resulted in stoppage of M.M.C. The son of the petitioner was discontinued from service on the ground that he became medically unfit on account of an injury sustained by him while undergoing training. An I.D. is said to have been filed by the son of the petitioner. The petitioner claims compensation in terms of settlement, dated 31.07.1997, under these circumstances. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioner. They contend that the petitioner was extended the benefit under the settlement and it was stopped soon after her son was provided with alternative employment. They contend that there is no scope for revival of the benefit to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This is an unfortunate case where the extension of benefit of alternative employment to the son of the petitioner on account of death of her husband has given rise not only to the stoppage of M.M.C., which was extended to her but also the loss of employment to her son for no fault of him. It is not as if the son of the petitioner was terminated from service on account of any acts of misconduct. Admittedly, he sustained injury while undergoing training. The respondents have simply washed away their hands on the one hand by terminating the services of the son of the petitioner, and on the other, by denying the benefit of M.M.C. to the petitioner. Even if the scheme may not have anticipated such contingency, the circumstances of this nature, this Court is of the view that the spirit thereof cannot be denied to the family of the deceased employee. It is not as if the respondents are being required to extend the benefit of M.M.C. as well as alternative employment. According to them, the son of the petitioner was kept under training and was not regularly employed. It brings about a situation that where the M.M.C. ought not to have been stopped to the petitioner till a regular employment is provided to her son. On the other hand, if the son of the petitioner is to be treated as regular employee, they were under obligation to provide the benefit to him in terms of various settlements. It was never in the contemplation of the management or the parties to the settlement that by providing an employment in the form of training and dismissing him from service, the whole benefit, be it in the form of M.M.C. or regular pay, can be denied. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the respondents shall pay M.M.C. to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2011 till the disposal of I.D.No.32 of 2008 pending before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The amount so paid shall be for the benefit of the petitioner as well as her injured son. The Industrial Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the I.D. as early as possible. The arrangement that shall continue after the disposal of the I.D. shall depend upon the nature of relief to be granted therein. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.12.2010 kdl