Asmita Arvind Patil And ANR v. Chief Engineer (Kzr) Msedcl Company Ltd And ANR

Bhogale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4552 OF 2019 Asmita Arvind Patil & anr.

.. Petitioners vs.

Chief Engineer (KZR) MSEDCL Company Ltd. & anr.

.. Respondents ------------------------ Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for the Petitioners. ------------------------

CORAM

: M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : JANUARY 28, 2021 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

2.

The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dismissing the complaint of the Petitioners. The complaint was fled under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act') essentially seeking relief of compassionate appointment. The Petitioner No.1 is voluntarily retired employee of Respondent No.1-Company. She sought premature retirement on medical grounds. The Petitioner No.1 therefore claimed that the Petitioner 1/3

No.2 be appointed on compassionate ground. The Industrial Court rejected the complaint holding that the complainant is not a workman and there is no employee and employer relationship between the complainant and the Respondents.

3.

So far as the merits are concerned, even the husband of the Petitioner No.1 was in the service of the Respondent No.1Company till 31.05.2015. The Petitioner No.1 took voluntary retirement on 02.04.2007. The Petitioner No.2 made an application for compassionate appointment on 25.08.2010. The Respondents called upon the Petitioners to make certain compliances vide their letter dated 22.08.2011. The Petitioners did not fle the afdavits as required in the letter dated 22.08.2011 till 2015 to the efect that no one dependent is working in the government, semi-government and private service prior to taking VRS. Petitioner No.2 waited till the retirement of his father and thereafter submitted the documents. It is thus clear that on the date when the Petitioner made an application for compassionate ground the Petitioners father was working with the Respondent-Company. The categoric fnding has been recorded that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are staying together with the father which is not controverted.

2/3

4.

In this view of the matter, even considering the scheme for employment of the son/daughter of the deceased employees which is enclosed at page 79 of the Petition, the Petitioner No.2 cannot be said to covered by the said scheme. The Petitioners father was working with the Respondent-Company on the date when the application for compassionate appointment was made. I do not fnd any perversity in the order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur.

5.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) Digitally signed by Diksha Rane Date:

2021.01.29 14:36:34 +0530 Diksha Rane 3/3