Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Executive Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Board challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Nashik, dated 14.3.1997, in Complaint (ULP) No. 426 of 1991. The respondent, Hajarabi w/o Abbas Khatik, is the widow of a deceased employee who worked as a line helper with the petitioner since 1981. The employee met with an accident on 3.5.1987 during employment, suffered 90% disability, and died on 15.6.1989. The respondent, along with her four minor children, was dependent on the deceased. She made repeated requests to the employer for compassionate appointment, which were refused. She filed a complaint under Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practice. The employer raised a preliminary objection that the respondent was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus the complaint was not maintainable. The Industrial Court framed three issues and held that the respondent, though not a workman, is an 'employee' under the MRTU and PULP Act and can maintain the complaint. The court found that the employer's refusal to grant compassionate appointment constituted an unfair labour practice and directed the employer to appoint the respondent and pay difference of wages from the date of application. The High Court, in this writ petition, upheld the Industrial Court's order, dismissing the petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Compassionate Appointment - Maintainability of Complaint - Widow as 'Employee' - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9 - The Industrial Court held that the widow of a deceased employee, though not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is an 'employee' under the MRTU and PULP Act and can maintain a complaint for unfair labour practice for denial of compassionate appointment. The court rejected the employer's preliminary objection that the complaint was not tenable. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Denial of Compassionate Appointment - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9 - The employer's refusal to appoint the widow on compassionate grounds despite repeated requests and guidelines was held to constitute an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court directed the employer to appoint the widow and pay difference of wages from the date of application. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent widow, who is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can maintain a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act for unfair labour practice for denial of compassionate appointment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the employer to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds and pay difference of wages from the date of application.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Widow as employee
- Unfair labour practice
- Maintainability of complaint
- MRTU and PULP Act
- Industrial Disputes Act
