Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Murlidhar Makdu Sapkale and his son Vijay Murlidhar Sapkale (WP No. 2786/2008), and Dinkar Popat Borale and his son Harshal Dinkar Borale (WP No. 2882/2008), filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, dated 18.10.2007, which dismissed their complaints (ULP No. 4/2002 and ULP No. 5/2002) alleging unfair labour practices by the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. The petitioners sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order and a direction to the respondents to appoint petitioner No. 2 (the son) in place of petitioner No. 1 (the father), who had retired on medical grounds. The petitioners relied on a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation allegedly accepting the application for compassionate appointment. The Industrial Court had dismissed the complaints on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Corporation, and no unfair labour practice was established. The High Court noted that the petitioners had initially sought to challenge the Industrial Court's order but later confined their prayer to seeking appointment of petitioner No. 2. The court observed that compassionate appointment is not a statutory right and that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court held that there was no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Medical Retirement - No Legal Right - The petitioners sought appointment of son on compassionate grounds after father's medical retirement from Municipal Corporation. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint holding no employer-employee relationship and no unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the decision, noting that compassionate appointment is not a statutory right and the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence. (Paras 1-4) B) Industrial Disputes Act - Unfair Labour Practice - Complaint - Employer-Employee Relationship - The Industrial Court found that the petitioners failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with the Municipal Corporation. The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226, as the findings were not perverse. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2 (son) in place of petitioner No.1 (father) who retired on medical grounds, and whether the Industrial Court's dismissal of the complaint alleging unfair labour practice was correct.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court dated 18.10.2007 is upheld.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a statutory right
- no vested right to appointment on medical retirement
- Industrial Court's findings on lack of employer-employee relationship not interfered with
- writ court's limited scope of review under Article 226.
