VADODARA MAHANAGAR SEVA SADAN Vs. BHANUBEN GORDHSANBHAI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner - Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan has approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging an award dated 06.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court No.2, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.81 of 2000.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent herein Smt.Bhanuben Gordhanbhai Solanki has claimed an appointment by way of compassionate basis claiming to be a legal heir of Shri Gordhanbhai Solanki, who was originally working with the petitioner Corporation in Ward No.2 as a 'Safai Sevak' in Sanitary Department on the permanent basis. The father of respondent is retired from the services on account of reaching the age of superannuation and by contending that respondent is eligible to get an appointment in his place on compassionate basis she appeared to have raised an industrial dispute initially before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, who vide order dated 24.03.2000 was pleased to refer it to the Industrial Court for adjudication. This Reference appears to have been raised through Union who submitted claim statement at Exh.6 inter alia claiming that there is a policy in petitioner Corporation that whoever retires from the services one of the legal heirs is to be given an appointment on compassionate basis and respondent being deserted daughter of original employee of the Corporation has submitted an application that she is eligible to seek an employment on that basis and claimed the relief that with effect from 28.10.1991 her claim be considered with all consequential benefits with 18% interest and the cost of Rs.5,000/- of Reference is claimed.

(3.) The record indicates that to meet with the claim submitted by the respondent workman through Union after service of summons from the learned Industrial Court a written reply came to be submitted at Exh.10 by the petitioner Corporation. It has been mainly contended that the father of the respondent claimant had retired by way of superannuation long before and Reference is submitted after more than a period of ten years and therefore, dispute raised itself is barred by principles of delay and laches. It was also contended that at a relevant point of time, father of the respondent claimant was superannuated, she was not a deserted daughter nor depending upon the father and, therefore, by submitting such kind of contention, a Reference was opposed by the petitioner. At Exh.11, the list of documents to have been submitted by the respondent and as many as eight documents were adduced and she herself chosen to be examined by deposing at Exh.13. From the deposition it appears that the father of the claimant had retired from the services way-back in the year 1991 and the Reference appears to be in the year 2000. However, with a view to meet with the stand of the claimant some documents have also been adduced by the petitioner Corporation at Exh.14 and later on an amended affidavit came to be submitted by the claimant respondent at Exh.18 by pointing out that it was not correct that when father died she was at her matrimonial home. After leading evidence, claimant respondent has submitted a closer Pursis at Exh.20 whereas the Corporation submitted at closer pursis at Exh.24 and after considering overall material, issues came to be framed by the learned Presiding Officer and ultimately after evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to partly allow the Reference by directing petitioner Corporation to take respondent claimant in service within a period of 60 days in view of agreement at Exh.14/2 and the said employment be on the basis of inheritance and the entire Reference came to be disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2007.