Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged the judgment and order dated 22.2.2012 of the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2010. The respondent, Kiran Sham Zadpide, is the son of Sham Zadpide, a deceased part-time Waterman employed by the petitioner from 16.3.1981. The deceased was dismissed on 19.7.1997 for theft of property but was later given a fresh appointment on 12.9.1998. He died on 6.6.2006. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 4.5.2009, which was not entertained. He then filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to sympathetically consider the application for appointment on a suitable post. The petitioner argued that the deceased was a fresh appointee with only 7 years 9 months of service, and that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. The High Court held that the Industrial Court did not direct appointment but only consideration, which is within its powers. The petition was dismissed, and the direction to consider the application sympathetically was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Compassionate Appointment - Sympathetic Consideration - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5 and 9 - The Industrial Court directed the employer to sympathetically consider the application of the son of a deceased part-time Waterman for compassionate appointment. The High Court upheld the direction, holding that the Industrial Court did not direct appointment but only consideration, which is permissible. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to sympathetically consider the application for compassionate appointment of the son of a deceased employee who was a part-time worker.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.2.2012 of the Industrial Court, Latur is upheld. The petitioner is directed to consider the application of the respondent sympathetically for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post as per his qualification.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- sympathetic consideration does not mandate automatic appointment
- Industrial Court can direct consideration but not appointment
