MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC Vs. SADASHIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions are interconnected and therefore the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The respondent-workman-Sadashiv Shivakka Naik, who was working as conductor was dismissed from service by order dtd. 16/5/2008 on the allegation of unauthorised absence. Challenging the same, the workman had approached the Labour Court, Hubballi under Sec. 10(4- A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') in proceedings bearing KID No.31/2008. The Labour Court vide award dtd. 31/7/2010 had partly allowed the claim petition and the order of Management dtd. 16/5/2008 dismissing the workman from service was set aside and the Management was directed to reinstate the workman into service with 50% backwages from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated into service, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Management has filed WP No.76419/2013 and the workman had filed WP No.72468/2012. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the workman died on 16/9/2019. His wife and son had made an application seeking compassionate appointment for the son, which was rejected by the Management by endorsement dtd. 9/3/2020 on the ground that since the workman was dismissed from service, application for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Assailing the said endorsement, wife and son of deceased workman have filed WP No.100077/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the workman submits that the order of punishment was passed by the Management without complying the requirement of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and therefore no fault can be found in the award passed by the Labour Court. He submits that the impugned endorsement in WP No.100077/2021 is therefore not sustainable in law and the respondents are required to reconsider the case of the legal representatives of workman for compassionate appointment.