SHIVAKUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Nagaraj Patil., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sudhirsingh Vijapur., learned DSGI for respondents have appeared in person.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these: The father of the petitioner was appointed as Driver in respondent Corporation in the year 1999. He was removed from service on the allegation that he remained unauthorizedly absent from 4/11/2010 to 21/1/2011. Hence, he filed a petition before the Labour Court, Kalaburagi in Reference No.47/2014 and during the pendency of the Reference, the father of the petitioner and respondent Corporation entered into compromise and accordingly they filed Joint Compromise Memo. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court allowed the Reference No.47/2014 in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo on the 12th day of February, 2016. In the Joint Compromise Memo, the Corporation agreed to reinstate the father of the petitioner back into service without back-wages, without continuity of service and consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement by withholding 3 ensuing increments with cumulative effects. As things stood thus, the father of the petitioner died on the 27th day of May, 2016. After the death of the father, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent Corporation seeking appointment on compassionate ground, but the same was denied by the respondent Corporation by issuing an endorsement on the 22nd day of December 2016. It is this endorsement that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.