LAWS(BOM)-1999-4-68

ICHALKARANJI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. RAJU BANDU TARAL

Decided On April 22, 1999
ICHALKARANJI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
V/S
RAJU BANDU TARAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. By consent of parties, heard finally.

(2.) THIS Appeal takes an exception to the order dated March 22, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1528 of 1999. By that order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) challenging interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 428 of 1996. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the Complaint before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the "m. R. T. U and P. U. L. P. Act") for getting employment in the Appellant-Municipal Council on compassionate ground. In that application, they made an application for interim relief seeking a direction to the Municipal Council that Respondent No. 1 (Original Complainant No. 1) should be appointed in Class-IV post by the Municipal Council. That application was granted by the Industrial Court. Against that order, a writ petition was filed by the Appellant (original Petitioner ). That petition, as stated above, has been rejected. Hence this letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that what was granted as interim relief by the Industrial Court was virtually the final relief that was sought by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their compliant. The learned counsel points out that the learned Industrial Court granted drastic interim relief in favour of Respondent nos. 1 and 2, though they did not have any prima facie case. He further points out that, according to the Government Resolution dated October 26, 1994, heirs of employees, who have retired from service after reaching the age of superannuation, are not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. He urges that only those employees, who either the in harness or have to take premature retirement due to illness, are entitled to get employment. He further points out that even if it assumed that dependents of Class IV employees, who retire on reaching the age of superannuation, are entitled to get employment on compassionate ground, Respondent No. 2 herein, of whom the Respondent No. 1 claims to be the ward, was Class-III employee. His pay scale was Rs. 950-1400 per month.