Quashed

Tikaram v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018WRIC/26428/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court which denied compassionate appointment for settling fathers death. This Court held the dispute raised by the union was not an industrial dispute and the Reference made by the Central Government was faulty.

What did the court decide?

The reference made by Central Government vide notification dated 11.11.2011 was faulty, and the award dated 15.3.2018 is declared invalid.

Tikaram Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26428 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tikaram

¶4

Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Om Sharan Tiwari,Ramesh Kumar Ojha

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶8

The dispute raised in the present case is with regard to the award of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court dated 15.3.2018 wherein on a dispute referred to it, relating to the demand of Union for appointment of the petitioner in Railway on compassionate ground, the labour court has observed that the petitioner, herein/an applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶9

The award passed by the labour court is based on the merits of the claim of the applicant.

¶10

It is noteworthy that the petitioner, herein, is seeking compassionate appointment in Northern Central Railway. The compassionate appointment in railway department is guided by the statutory rules framed by it. The statutory authority is empowered to consider all applications moved on compassionate ground under the powers conferred upon it by the statute.

¶11

In view of the said fact, it was not open for the Central Government to refer the dispute for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in Railway on the demand of the Union.

¶12

The petitioner, herein, further submits that under the statutory rules, pertaining to the compassionate appointment in Railways, the power lies to relax the period of five years as prescribed for moving application. The claim of the petitioner for grant of relaxation beyond five years has not been given due consideration. The labour court has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that a settlement had been arrived between the petitioner and his step mother and as per the said settlement, the petitioner received payment of terminal dues of the deceased employee.

¶13

To the merits of the award and the jurisdiction of the labour court to entertain the dispute, Sri Vivek Rai, learned Advocate

¶14

appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently submits that the dispute raised before the Central Government with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner on account of death of his father was not referable to the labour court as the said dispute does not come within the meaning of industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶15

It is further contended that the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner as per the Recruitment Rules has been adjudicated by the statutory authority and vide order dated 10.2.2010, page 42 of the paper book, his application dated 17.11.2009 seeking compassionate appointment was rejected being beyond period of five years.

¶16

In the said circumstances, only course open for the petitioner was to challenge the order of rejection of his claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

¶17

Considering the said submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the annexure '2' and '3' to the writ petition (page '36' and '42' of the paper book) as also paragraphs 6 and 8 of the labour court award dated 15.3.2018, it is found that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after death of his deceased father was rejected on the ground of delay i.e. being beyond period of five years.

¶18

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said claim was rejected in wholly illegal manner inasmusch as, the Railway authorities had power to condone the delay and entertain the application on merits, cannot be considered in view of the fact that the petitioner did not approach the competent authority raising such grievance. Rather, he approached the employees union which raised dispute before the Central Government. The issue as to whether an applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment cannot be a matter of industrial dispute and cannot be raised through Employees's Union.

¶19

This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the reference made by the Central Government, vide notification dated 11.11.2011, itself was faulty. The award dated 15.3.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, is declared invalid being wholly without jurisdiction.

¶20

The writ petition is decided, accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2018/Pratima

Tikaram v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikaram v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Asif Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mudit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Razzak @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Porwal Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, S.B.I. Jalaun and 4 Others

M/S Imi Norgren Herion (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Labour Court U.P. , Noida and 3 Others