1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri A. R. Joshi for Petitioner. He points out that compassionate employment is an exception to normal rule of recruitment and hence there has to be a specific rule or policy prescribed for it. As the petitioner/ employer does not have any such rule or policy, complaint filed before Industrial Court by Respondent under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was not maintainable. He further contends that as there are no rules, and as there can be no interference by learned Industrial Court in the matter, three instances looked by Industrial Court in paragraph 15 are also irrelevant. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel I have perused the judgment delivered by Industrial Court. As fairly pointed out by learned counsel, in paragraph 15 Industrial Court has noted that three ladies viz. Smt. Suman, Smt. Manjula and Smt. Nanda were given appointment on compassionate ground only by petitioners. Shri Joshi has stated that, that was because of recommendation in their favour by State Government. The Industrial Court has found that resolutions in their favour specifically mentioned that appointments were on compassionate ground. 3. The recommendation of Government is totally irrelevant. The petitioners appear to be providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependents of its employees. There is no reason why same treatment cannot be given to Respondent. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1035 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the approach of Industrial Court. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:23/02/2011. ans/1035