Bombay High Court
Ichalkaranji Municipal Council vs Raju Bandu Taral And Ors. on 22 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: [1999(82)FLR267], (1999)IILLJ970BOM
Author: D.K. Deshmukh
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh
JUDGMENT D.K. Deshmukh, J.
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.
4. Mr. Apte, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that the Government Resolution dated October 26, 1994 is a different Scheme. In the submission of the learned counsel, Respondent No. 1 was claiming employment under the Scheme, which was propounded by the Circular dated April 14, 1992. Further, in the submission of the learned Counsel, according to that Scheme, wards of employees in Class-IV service, who retire on reaching the age of superannuation, become eligible for employment on compassionate ground.
5. As we are considering this Appeal, which is directed essentially against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, it is not necessary for us to go into the controversy whether under the Scheme of State Government, Respondent No. 1 is eligible to get employment. That issue is pending consideration before the Industrial Court and will be decided by the Industrial Court at the final decision of the complaint. In our opinion, even if it is assumed that Respondent No. 1 was eligible to get employment on compassionate ground, he had no right to get an employment though he may be entitled to have his claim considered. In this situation, in our opinion the Industrial Court was not at all justified in granting interim relief which was in the nature of final relief.
6. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the writ petition filed by the Municipal Council challenging the interim order passed by the Industrial Court ought to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, non- interference with the palpably erroneous order passed by the learned Industrial Court shows patent error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. In the result, therefore, the present Appeal succeeds. The order dated February 22, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1528 of 1999 is set aside as well as the order dated November 5, 199& passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 428 of 1996 is also set aside. Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.