The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment for his missing father. The High Court holds that the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint due to belated filing after over 20 years. The order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp973-12.order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 973 of 2013. Lokmitra Bondku Sontakke
Vs.
The Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur and another.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr. N.V. Desai, counsel for the petitioner.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 21st February, 2013.
By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court on 3.8.2012, dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner.
The father of the petitioner was serving as a labourer with the respondent. The father of the petitioner was missing since the year 1993 and on a presumption that he was dead, the petitioner applied to the respondent for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The respondent failed to provide the job to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent. The complaint was, however, dismissed by the Industrial Court.
The Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the same was filed belatedly. The father of the petitioner went missing since the year 1993. The family members of the petitioner received the service benefits and family pension in the year 1996. When the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground, it was informed by the respondent to the petitioner that there is no provision to provide employment on compassionate ground to the dependents of missing
wp973-12.order
employees. The mother of the petitioner was getting pension. The Industrial Court held that the cause of action for the petitioner to file the complaint accrued much earlier but the complaint was filed by the petitioner as belatedly as in the year 2009. The object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to provide succour to the members of the family of a person who dies in harness. The object of the provisions for granting compassionate appointment would have been frustrated by granting appointment to the petitioner. The approach of the Industrial Court in deciding the matter was just and proper. Even otherwise, the petitioner’s father was missing since the year 1993 and more than 20 years have lapsed since then. The impugned order cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the dismissal of a complaint alleging unfair labour practice regarding compassionate appointment made belatedly after a long lapse of time.
Lokmitra Bondku Sontakke
The Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur
VASANTI A. NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
