Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Thakur, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which dismissed his complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The petitioner's father was employed with the respondent, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), and was declared unfit after 22 years of service, with his services terminated on 23-12-1994. He died on 28-8-1998. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as Conductor on 8-1-1999. His application was rejected on 23-2-1999 on the ground that his height of 179 cm exceeded the maximum prescribed height of 178 cm for the post of Conductor. The respondent offered him the post of Cleaner instead. The petitioner approached the Industrial Court, arguing that the respondent had the authority to relax the height requirement and that several other conductors with height exceeding 179 cm were still employed. The respondent denied the existence of such conductors and contended that the petitioner had no right to insist on appointment as Conductor. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The High Court, in its judgment dated 12-04-2010, upheld the Industrial Court's decision, holding that the employer's refusal to relax the height requirement did not constitute an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The court noted that the petitioner was offered an alternative post of Cleaner and that there was no evidence of other conductors being employed with height exceeding the prescribed limit. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Compassionate Appointment - Height Requirement - Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as Conductor after his father's death in service. His application was rejected because his height (179 cm) exceeded the prescribed maximum (178 cm). The employer offered him the post of Cleaner. The Industrial Court dismissed his complaint of unfair labour practice. The High Court held that the employer had no obligation to relax the height requirement and that the refusal to appoint as Conductor did not amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 9. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment as Conductor on the ground that his height exceeded the prescribed maximum constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment as Conductor did not amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU and PULP Act
- Height requirement
- Relaxation of conditions
- Employer's discretion
