M C D Vs. MADHUBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the award dated 9th March, 2001, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereunder while holding that the respondent, daughter of the deceased employee of the petitioner was entitled for appointment at the post of LDC or an equivalent post on compassionate grounds and that she was entitled to hold the accommodation which was allotted to her deceased mother, the petitioner MCD was directed to complete the necessary formalities regarding the appointment of the respondent within one month from the date when the Award was to become enforceable.

(2.) Briefly narrated, the facts of the case as set up by the respondent in the statement of claim filed by her before the Tribunal are that her mother, the deceased employee of the petitioner MCD died on 16th April, 1991 while in service as a permanent Ward Aya posted at Lajpat Nagar Hospital, leaving behind her husband, daughter, i.e., the respondent aged 24 years at the relevant time, and two younger sons. It was stated that one of the sons of the deceased employee initially applied for compassionate appointment, but later on it was decided to secure appointment in favour of the respondent, however, it was only during the course of the conciliation proceedings that the petitioner management agreed to supply the application form to her. It was further stated that though she tried to submit the form to the Resident Medical Superintendent, Lajpat Nagar Hospital, but on his refusal to accept the same, it was submitted to the Asst. Labour Officer, MCD on 23rd October, 1992. Having received no reply to the same, the respondent assumed that her application was rejected. Thereafter the conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in the following terms of reference:

(3.) The claim of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner MCD by way of filing the written statement and the main objection taken therein was that she was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds since sufficient retiral benefits had been released to the family. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed which was followed by the parties advancing their arguments and leading evidence, based on which the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that it was not acceptable that the respondent had not applied for compassionate appointment and also that the respondent did submit her application for the same on the intervention of the conciliation officer. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management did not apply its mind on the application even after a long time had passed and the same was rejected without any communication to the respondent, and also that no ground was made out by the petitioner MCD to prove that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed by which it was directed that the respondent be appointed on compassionate grounds and also that she was entitled to hold in her possession the accommodation that was allotted to her mother. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner MCD has approached this Court.