Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, the Chief Officer and President of Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal, challenged an order dated 22/3/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which allowed the revision application filed by the respondent, Smt. Pratibha Pradip Gaikwad, and directed her reinstatement pending decision in her complaint. The respondent is the widow of Pradip Sadashiv Gaikwad, who was initially appointed as a Coolie in the Construction Department of the Municipal Council and later worked in the Health Department. He died on 20/7/2005 while in service. Based on the recommendations of the Lad Committee, the respondent was appointed on the post that fell vacant due to her husband's death and joined as a Sweeper/Coolie in the Health Department on 4/11/2009. However, her services were terminated on 19/12/2009 on the ground that she was not entitled to such appointment as per the Lad Committee recommendations, since her husband was working in the Construction Department and the recommendations were not applicable to such employees. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 2/2010 challenging the termination and also filed an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court allowed the revision and directed reinstatement. The High Court observed that the Industrial Court did not consider whether the respondent had a strong prima facie case or whether the balance of convenience was in her favour. The High Court noted that the appointment itself was made without proper authority and was contrary to the Lad Committee recommendations. Therefore, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court granted interim relief of reinstatement to a widow whose appointment on compassionate grounds was terminated. The High Court held that the Industrial Court failed to consider whether the respondent had a strong prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience was in her favour, especially when the appointment itself was allegedly contrary to the Lad Committee recommendations. (Paras 2-6) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Lad Committee Recommendations - The respondent's husband was working in the Construction Department, and the Lad Committee recommendations were not applicable to such employees. The High Court noted that the appointment of the respondent was made without proper authority and was terminated on that ground. The High Court set aside the interim order and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent as interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, when the appointment was allegedly not in accordance with the Lad Committee recommendations.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 22/3/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint (ULP) No. 2/2010 expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Lad Committee recommendations
- Interim relief under MRTU and PULP Act
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
