1 wp4731-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4731 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Maharashtra Raste Va Patbandhare Karmachari Sanghatana and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.A.D.Kango, A.G.P. for the petitioner Mr.M.B.Gawade for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 27th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original respondent challenges the order dt. 30.03.2011 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Kolhapur directing the petitioner to consider respondent no.2 / original complainant no.2’s application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the post held by his father or any other suitable post as per his educational qualification. 2 wp4731-11.doc 3. In the present case, the respondent no.2’s father Dilip Vishwas Jadhav was working as a Gardener with the petitioner. He died on 21.1.2001 while in service. Thereafter, his wife Sulochana Jadhav applied for job on compassionate ground. She also died on 9.1.2002 before getting any employment. At that time respondent no.2 was a minor. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed application dt.23.8.2006 for getting employment on compassionate ground. The said application was not decided by the petitioner and therefore, respondent no.2 filed complaint (ULP) No.125 of 2008 in the Industrial Court at Kolhapur under section 28 read with Schedule IV Item Nos.9 and 10 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In the said complaint, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur by impugned order dt.30.3.2011 directed the petitioner to consider respondent no.2’s application dt.23.8.2006. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary to get the details of the entire matter. The only direction issued by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur by impugned order dt.30.3.2011 is that the petitioner should consider the respondent’s application dt.23.8.2006 3 wp4731-11.doc seeking employment on compassionate ground. 5. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to point out whether they decided the respondent no.2’s application or not. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned Member, Kolhapur dt.30.3.2011 by which the court directed the petitioner to consider and decide the respondents application dt.23.8.2006. 6. Hence, petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)