Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Jamir Sayed Saifoddin, challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dismissing his complaint (ULP No.13/2011) and the Industrial Court rejecting his revision (Revision ULP No.52/2012). The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Sayed Saifoddin Yusufoddin, who worked as a Fireman and was medically retired on 19.10.1999 due to tuberculosis. The petitioner submitted a notarized adoption deed dated 20.05.1999 and was appointed on compassionate ground on 25.02.2011. However, the appointment was cancelled on 27.09.2011 as it was found to be against the provisions of law and the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994. The Labour Court and Industrial Court upheld the termination. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the adoption deed was not valid as per the Government Resolution and the petitioner's appointment was rightly terminated.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Adoption Deed - Validity - Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 - The petitioner claimed appointment on compassionate ground as adopted son of a deceased employee. The adoption deed was notarized after the employee's medical retirement. The court held that the adoption was not in accordance with the Government Resolution and the appointment was rightly terminated. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground based on a notarized adoption deed was valid and whether his termination was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The termination of the petitioner's appointment was confirmed.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- adoption deed
- notarized deed
- registered deed
- Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Item 1(a
- b
- d
- f
- g)
- termination
- Labour Court
- Industrial Court
- writ petition
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 17
WRIT PETITION NO.7729 OF 2013
Mrs.A.N.Ansari for Petitioner, Shri Amit S. Deshpande for Respondent
Shaikh Jamir Sayed Saifoddin
The Chief Officer, The Municipal Council, Jalna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgments of Labour Court and Industrial Court dismissing the petitioner's complaint and revision against termination of compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the termination order and reinstate him in service.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground was cancelled on the ground that the adoption deed was not valid and the appointment was against the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.13/2011 on 31.07.2012; Industrial Court dismissed Revision (ULP) No.52/2012 on 24.06.2013.
Issues
Whether the adoption deed dated 20.05.1999 was valid for the purpose of compassionate appointment under the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994.
Whether the termination of the petitioner's appointment was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 enables appointment of an adopted son on compassionate ground and the adoption deed was notarized and later registered.
Respondent contended that the adoption was not in accordance with law and not in tune with clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994.
Ratio Decidendi
The adoption deed notarized after the employee's medical retirement does not satisfy the requirements of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 for compassionate appointment. The appointment was rightly terminated.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 31.07.2012 delivered by the Labour Court thereby, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.13/2011 and the judgment dated 24.06.2013 delivered by the Industrial Court thereby, rejecting Revision (ULP) No.52/2012.
The Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 25.02.2011 subject to the approval from the Directorate of Municipal Council, Mumbai. As the approval was not received and the appointment of the Petitioner was found to be against the provisions of law, his appointment came to be cancelled and he stood terminated by order dated 27.09.2011.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.13/2011 before the Labour Court under Section 28(1) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 challenging his termination. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on 31.07.2012. The petitioner filed Revision (ULP) No.52/2012 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 24.06.2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 28(1), Schedule IV Item 1(a, b, d, f, g)
