NUSRAT KAMAL ANSARI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18th October, 2007, delivered by Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 225/2005, dismissing their complaint. The complaint was filed for securing compassionate employment for the present petitioner No. 2 who was complainant No. 2 in that complaint. On 25. 6. 2008, this Court has made the rule returnable on 17. 11. 2008.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri B. M. Khan, for the petitioner and Advocate Shri V. G. Wankhede, for respondent.

(3.) ADVOCATE Khan has pointed out that the learned Member, Industrial Court has erroneously presumed that the petitioner No. 1 must have first claimed alternate employment and thereafter only the benefit of compassionate employment to his son ie. petitioner No. 2 would have become available. He has invited attention to various circulars issued from time to time, particularly the circular dated 10th September, 1975, to point out that ground of compassionate employment to son of the employee i. e. petitioner no. 1 who is required to leave the service on account of medical unfitness is an alternate solace prescribed. He states that the circular no where requires petitioner No. 1 to seek alternate employment first; so as to enable his son to claim employment on compassionate ground. He also invites attention to subsequent circular dated 16. 2. 1994 on the point to point out that the said circular requires the respondent to provide alternate employment to unfit drivers and also permitted him to apply for grant of compassionate employment to his dependent. He also states that this circular contains clause that only one dependent from family of S. T employee would be given benefit of the scheme. However, on 22. 7. 1996 a subsequent circular incorporating policy decision was issued and all earlier circulars including circular dated 16. 2. 1994 was quashed. The drivers like petitioner No. 1 were permitted the option available under 10. 9. 1975's circular by reviving the circular dated 12. 1. 1970, as also circular dated 10. 9. 1975. He, therefore, urges that impugned order of learned Member of Industrial Court suffers from error apparent and in any case non application of mind.