Dismissed

The Maharashtra State Co. Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Thr District Manager and v. Vijaymala Udhavrao Kornule

Bombay HC23 Feb 2011WP/1035/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court Bench at Aurangabad examined a complaint filed by the respondent before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Despite the petitioner's argument that compassionate employment required a specific rule absent which the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction, the ass

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected. There were no costs.

The Maharashtra State Co. Operative Housing Finance… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011
***

¶8

1.Heard Advocate Shri A. R. Joshi for
Petitioner. He points out that compassionate
employment is an exception to normal rule of
recruitment and hence there has to be a
specific rule or policy prescribed for it.
As the petitioner/ employer does not have any
such rule or policy, complaint filed before
Industrial Court by Respondent under Item 9
of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 was not maintainable.
He further contends that as there are no
rules, and as there can be no interference by
learned Industrial Court in the matter, three
instances looked by Industrial Court in
paragraph 15 are also irrelevant.

¶9

¶10

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011

¶12

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶13

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶14

2.With the assistance of learned counsel I
have perused the judgment delivered by
Industrial Court. As fairly pointed out by
learned counsel, in paragraph 15 Industrial
Court has noted that three ladies viz. Smt.
Suman, Smt. Manjula and Smt. Nanda were given
appointment on compassionate ground only by
petitioners. Shri Joshi has stated that,
that was because of recommendation in their
favour by State Government. The Industrial
Court has found that resolutions in their
favourspecificallymentionedthat
appointments were on compassionate ground.

¶15

3.The recommendation of Government is

¶16

totally irrelevant. The petitioners appear
to be providing employment on compassionate
ground to the dependents of its employees.
There is no reason why same treatment cannot
be given to Respondent.

¶17

¶18

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011

¶21

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶22

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶23

4.I do not find any jurisdictional error

¶24

or perversity with the approach of Industrial
Court. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No
costs.

¶25

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:23/02/2011.
ans/1035

The Maharashtra State Co. Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Thr District Manager and v. Vijaymala Udhavrao Kornule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maharashtra State Co. Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Thr District Manager and v. Vijaymala Udhavrao Kornule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Tulsiram Bargaje Vs the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Sahebrao Kisanrao Kengar Vs the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Kiran Ashok Agrawal and Anr. Vs Manik Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad Th Director and Auth Signatory

Shriram Vithoba Dandge Vs Bhaskar Sukhdeo Tayade and Ors.

Shri Shivaji Shikshak Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Mudkhed Vs Shaikh Akhlakh Vilayat Hussain

Narayan Namdeo Korde and Anr. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.