1. This matter has been time and again listed before this Court and Mr. Vaishya has repeatedly not remained present before this Court. Even today Mr. Vaishya is not present though the matter was specifically kept today as he was absent on the last occasion.
2. The petitioner corporation has challenged the order dated 09.09.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda by virtue of which the son of the original workman-Shri Ishwarbhai, now deceased, was granted appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Ishwarbhai was serving as Conductor with the petitioner corporation . On account of some sickness he was declared unfit by the Superintendent of Civil Surgeon, Jamnabai Hospital, Baroda. He was therefore discharged from service. Thereafter, the son of said Ishwarbhai filed an application on 23.07.1996 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said request was rejected by the corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent workman preferred reference before the Tribunal to accommodate his son Vijaykumar. The Tribunal vide impugned order directed the petitioner to grnat appointment to the son of the original workman on the basis of his qualification or at some other post.
4. Mr. Sanghvi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dagli submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering that the benefit of settlement which was sought for would not be applicable on the facts of the present case. He submitted that when the application of the respondent of declaring him permanently unfit is found to be not as per the Rules and Regulations.
5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 09.09.2004, the Labour Court directed the petitioner Corporation to give employment to the dependent of the original workman Shri Ishwarbhai Jadav who got discharged from the service of petitioner corporation on health grounds. In the present case the petitioner himself has shown his willingness to be discharged from service. The same is evident from the letter at Ex. 19. Accordingly his prayer was accepted and the period from 08.05.1996 to 07.07.1996 was considered as notice period. In such an event, this court is of the view that compassionate appointment ought not to have been granted in the present case. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
6. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.09.2004 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya