KALLANAGOUDA Vs. NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th/23rd February, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-C passed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the claim of the petitioner for appointment in the 1st respondent-North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on compassionate ground came to be rejected. Few facts, which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be briefly stated as hereunder:

(2.) THE father of the petitioner, one Sri Hanumanthagouda Mallanagouda Patil was working as Conductor in the services of the Corporation. However, he came to be dismissed from the service by the corporation on the ground that he had committed certain misconduct. In the dispute raised by him, the Labour Court, by means of its award dated 21st January, 1998 upheld the decision of the Corporation dismissing him from service on the ground that the misconduct alleged against him was proved. However, the said award passed by the Labour court was challenged before this Court in W. P. No. 22834 of 1998. However, this Court, while holding that the finding of the Labour Court that the misconduct alleged against the father of the petitioner was proved, set aside the order of dismissal made against him on the ground that it was excessive and directed award of 50% of back wages from 30th may, 1988 to 21st January, 1995 with a direction to give continuity of service from 1988 to 1995 for the purpose of terminal benefits. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner made an application seeking appointment in the Corporation on compassionate ground. As noticed by me earlier, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Corporation by means of its Order/endorsement, Annexure-C, dated 19th/23rd February, 2001.

(3.) SRI R. A. Shiraguppi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the order of dismissal passed against father of the petitioner was set aside by this Court in the writ petition referred to above, it must be held that the father of the petitioner expired when he was in service and as such the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in the respondent Corporation. Secondly, he urged that the grounds assigned in the Order/endorsement, Annexure-Crejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is erroneous in law. Elaborating this, he pointed out that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in order/endorsement, Annexure-C solely on the ground that this Court in the writ petition referred to above had not made any order directing the corporation to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground; and this court has only directed for payment of back wages with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits. It is his submission that since the only question that had arisen for consideration before this court was with regard to the legality of the order of dismissal made against the father of the petitioner and also the legality of the award passed by the Labour Court, this Court had no occasion to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and a direction is required to be issued to the respondent-Corporation to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.