THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.27604 of 1997 DATED: 12.02.2008 Between:- The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. … PETITIONER AND Smt Kantha Devi and another. … RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.27604 of 1997 O R D E R The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.167 of 1992 dated 17-11-1996, whereby the first respondent was directed to be reinstated as a fresher with 50% of the back wages from the date of her termination till the date of joining subject to the condition that she approached the petitioner-Corporation with a request to issue an order of appointment and such a request should be made in writing and it should be sent by registered post acknowledgement due, a copy of which was to be marked to the Court, and if she failed to do so, the I.D. would be deemed to have been dismissed. The first respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending that her termination from service was illegal. The first respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds. The scheme of compassionate appointment, in G.O.Ms.No.699 dated 28-08-1978, specifically provides that appointment on compassionate grounds shall be extended only to the spouse of the deceased municipal employee or to the dependent children of the deceased municipal employee, who died in harness, and there being no earning member in the family. A departmental enquiry was held and the enquiry officer recorded the statements of several witnesses and recorded a finding that the first respondent had suppressed the fact that her brothers were employees in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and had thereby secured employment on compassionate grounds. Among the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry, as witness No.4, the first respondent’s mother stated that she had three sons and a daughter viz. Balbir Singh, Mahender Singh, Kishen and Kantha Devi and that they were residing at Sultanshahi. She further stated that her eldest son and her third son were working in the Municipal Corporation and her second son was working in Housing Board. She also deposed that the first respondent was married. Statement of the first respondent was also recorded in the enquiry. She stated that her mother, Dhannu Bhai and her brothers and herself were all residing in one house, that she was married and was receiving Rs.650/- p.m. and that during the period of enquiry, she was getting half salary. The enquiry officer held that, according to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.699 dated 28-08-1978, there should be no other earning member in the family at the time of the death of the deceased, which was a condition precedent for appointment on compassionate grounds, that in an application dated 24-05-1986, the first respondent had sought appointment on compassionate grounds by suppressing the fact that all the sons of Smt Dhannu Bhai (widow of the deceased) were employed and out of them two with the Corporation, and accordingly, her services were dispensed with. Curiously, the Labour Court, ignored the evidence on this aspect and examined the question as to whether the first respondent was married or not. The Labour Court concluded that the first respondent was married after her employment, that all her brothers were living separately and none of them were dependants of the deceased and that it was the first respondent’s natural mother and Attru Bai (mistress of the deceased) who were living as dependants. The Labour Court on recording these findings held that the first respondent, being one of the legal representatives of the deceased, deserved to be appointed. On perusal of the enquiry officer’s report in Ex.M.43, the Labour Court noted that the enquiry officer had lost sight of the material and relevant fact that though the first respondent had three brothers, he had not questioned whether they were married or whether they were living with their parents or whether they were dependents not being employed or whether they were maintaining their parents. This finding of the Labour Court that the first respondent had three brothers and all of them were employed and married during the life time of their father and were living separately is contrary to the evidence on record. As noted hereinabove, the enquiry officer had recorded the statements of both Smt Dhannu Bhai (widow of the deceased) and the first respondent herself in the departmental enquiry. Both the first respondent and her mother admitted that they were all staying in one house along with her sons two of whom were employed with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The findings of the Labour Court to the contrary are perverse and are based on no evidence. Since the award suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of record, it is liable to be quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 12-02-2008 usd