The Delhi High Court opined that the appointment on
compassionate grounds is a policy matter and Court/Tribunal can only
give directions to the Authority to consider the facts of a particular
case subject to availability of vacancy. The scheme of appointment on
compassionate grounds is an exception and has to be applied cautiously.
It can only be
granted within the parameters set by the Supreme Court in various decisions. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner is a government company involved in the activity of generating electricity. Badarpur Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as “BTPS”) owned by government set up for the purpose of production of electricity. BTPS and Petitioner entered into an agreement vide which management of BTPS was transferred to the Petitioner for a period of ten years which was extended from time to time. Pursuant to transfer of management, employees of BTPS volunteered to become employees of Petitioner.
A committee was constituted namely National Bi-partite Committee
(hereinafter referred to as “NBC”) to prescribe uniform terms and
conditions of services to all employees at all
establishments owned by the Petitioner. The parties used to enter into
negotiations and come to a settlement during the course of conciliation
proceedings before the respective appropriate Governments, including
Labour department of the Central government. One such settlement was
entered with the employees of BTPS and they were represented by various
trade unions.
The Respondent No.1 was not involved in the signatures to the settlements and the subject matter of the settlement included appointment on compassionate grounds. A tripartite meeting was held wherein the Ministry of Power decided and agreed to extend the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees of BTPS, however it was subject to death on duty to any reasons during the period of service, qualifications and vacancies. The said decision was incorporated vide a circular.
Read also : Mother's Choice is supreme: Delhi HC allows 33-weeks pregnant woman to abort abnormal foetus
The Petitioner contended that the subject matter of appointment on compassionate grounds was covered in the settlement, however, Respondent still approached the Labor Department alleging dispute over the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds. The conciliation officer was made aware by the Petitioner about the settlement. But, an award was passed vide which the Petitioner was directed to extend the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees of those who died during their period of service with Petitioner subject to qualifications and fitness as prescribed.
The present writ petition is preferred against the said award.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Contentions of the Respondent
It was argued by the Respondent that the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds is a part and parcel of service conditions of BTPS employees and the same cannot be altered to their detriment. The validity of settlements was challenged submitting that the conciliation machinery had been used as a rubber stamp to give ready-made settlements the color of conciliation settlements.
Observations of the Court
On the question of jurisdiction, the Court observed that the order passed by the Learned Labor Court does not question whether the appointment has to be granted or not, instead it points out at the justifiability of the action of the management in denying compassionate appointment to these dependents. Therefore, the order is valid to the extent that it questions the fairness of the action of the Authority in implementing the terms of the settlement.
It was noted by the Court that the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds has been a subject matter of various arrangements between the management and the Trade Unions. The Bench opined that the settlement in the course of conciliation proceedings with the assistance of the conciliation officer is binding on all the parties. The disputed settlement was not attended by Respondent No.1. A letter was written by Respondent No.2 that he was given only one day’s time to submit its response to the proposed settlement and it was not practical. There were allegations that the conciliation officer was biased.
It was noted by the High Court that the said settlement had a binding effect under Section 18(3) of IDA on all members including those who were being represented by Respondent No.1 and the said settlement would even be binding on all future workmen . It was also noted that the Respondent No.1 had approached the Hon’ble Court and filed a writ petition contending that the settlement was not arrived at with true representative union of the employees of BTPS. But the said writ petition was dismissed. The contentions that the settlement was unfair is only raised in this writ and was never raised before the Learned Labor Court. Therefore, the Court did not entertain this plea under the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.
The High Court opined that in absence of any notice of termination or new contract to replace the said settlement, the settlement would be binding and would regulate the relationship between the management and workmen. It was noted by the Bench that the management was consistent in its stand when it came to matter of appointment on compassionate grounds. It was evident that the appointment on compassionate grounds was not offered in absolute terms. It was held that the findings of the Learned Labor Court were only based on the circular issued in lieu of settlement which cannot be sustained.
The Delhi High Court opined that the appointment on compassionate
grounds is a policy matter and Court/Tribunal can only give directions
to the Authority to consider the facts of a particular case subject to
availability of vacancy. The scheme of appointment on compassionate
grounds is an exception and has to be applied cautiously. It can only be
granted within the parameters set by the Supreme Court in various decisions. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Decision of the Court
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Delhi High Court set aside the award issued by the Learned Labor Court and accordingly allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: N.T.P.C. & Anr. V. Badarpur Power Engineers & Workers Union & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gaurang Kanth
Case No.: W.P.(C) 18657/2004
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Raj Birbal, Ms. Raavi Birbal
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments