WP/147/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.147 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Yashoda Bapu Jadhav & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. N.V. Walawalkar with Mr. R.A. Malandkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Prakash Devdas for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner-Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition against the Judgement and Order dated 24th August, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.283 of 2002 as well as the order dated 28th June, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.84 of 2007. 2. A complaint was filed under Items 1(b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the respondents contending that they apprehend that their services would be terminated. This apprehension was because they were charged with having secured employment as a “Preferential Treatment” case available to WP/147/2011 2 the relatives of employees who are not in service on medical grounds. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the original employee Bapu Jadhav, who was the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.2, was unwell and unable to attend work, regularly. The respondent No.1 submitted an application for appointment on a sympathetic basis. The respondent No.1 was appointed in service while her husband was still in service. Bapu Jadhav expired and his son, i.e. respondent No.2 herein, was appointed on compassionate grounds by the petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner-Corporation now contends that two persons from the same family could not have availed of appointments on a compassionate grounds. 3. Both the Courts below have not accepted the contentions of the petitioner- Corporation and in my view, rightly so. Admittedly, the wife of Bapu Jadhav, i.e. respondent No.1 herein, was in service while Bapu Jadhav was on the Rolls of the petitioner-Corporation. Therefore, she could not have been appointed on compassionate ground. Respondent No.2, i.e. his son, was appointed only after the death of his father, on compassionate grounds. 4. The Writ Petition is rejected and the orders of both the Courts below are upheld.