AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the present petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been dismissed. The complaint came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that there was an inter se dispute between the petitioners as to who is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground and that dispute cannot be decided by the Industrial Court.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that deceased Gulabrao Patil was serving in the respondent-department as a Forest Guard and expired while in service on 19.04.1996, leaving behind the present petitioners and respondent No.5. The present petitioners filed a complaint before the Industrial Court on 10.09.2013, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent No.5, who is the son of the first wife of deceased Gulabrao Patil, was also impleaded as a party to the said proceedings.
It is pointed out that respondent No.5 neither appeared before the Industrial Court nor filed any written statement controverting the claim made by the petitioners. As such, respondent No.5 was proceeded ex parte. Therefore, contending parties examined themselves before the Industrial Court. The respondents also entered the witness box and led evidence in support of their respective cases. Respondent No.5/Petitioner No.2 not raised any grievance in the matter. As such, issue was only to decide the entitlement of petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground before Industrial Court.
The Industrial Court, upon considering the evidence led by the parties, dealt with the controversy involved in the matter but dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that there is an inter se dispute between the two claimants, i.e., petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 for appointment on compassionate ground and thereby, concluded that the inter se dispute between the dependents cannot be decided by Industrial Court as same is beyond its jurisdiction and accordingly, dismissed the complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5 had never claimed appointment on compassionate grounds, though he was impleaded as a necessary party in the proceedings before the Industrial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners have placed on record an affidavit dated 24.07.2026 pointing out that the name of respondent No.5 has already been deleted by the respondent-department from the waiting list of candidates eligible appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus, according to the petitioners, respondent No.5 has neither claimed appointment on compassionate grounds nor his name presently included in the list maintained by the department. It is, therefore, submitted that the very basis on which the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint is contrary to the facts available on record.
Learned AGP, however, submitted that the Industrial Court had not dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of the inter se dispute between the brothers. According to the learned AGP, there was no agreement or contract between the deceased employee and the respondent-department conferring any right upon his legal heirs to seek appointment on compassionate grounds after his death. It is, therefore, submitted that the Industrial Court was justified in considering the controversy and dismissing the complaint.
It is pertinent to note that compassionate appointment is governed by the policy framed by the State Government. The object of such policy is to provide financial assistance to the family of an employee who dies while in service, leaving the family in financial distress. Such a policy has been framed with a view to extending immediate financial assistance to an eligible dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment is required to be considered by the department in accordance with the policy and the guidelines prescribed by the State Government which are in the nature of agreements and binding on department.
In the present matter, the principal ground on which the Industrial Court has rejected the petition is that there is an inter-se dispute between the two brothers, namely, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 5, and that unless such dispute is resolved, the issue of compassionate appointment cannot be decided. However, the facts brought on record by the petitioners do not support such a conclusion. Respondent No. 5 has nowhere claimed that he is interested in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the Industrial Court committed an error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of the alleged inter se dispute. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, dated 17.02.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The Complaint ULP No. 47 of 2013, is restored to the file of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal.
The petitioners are directed to appear before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 1st September, 2026.
The Industrial Court shall make an endeavor to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible.