1 wp1246-11 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1246 OF 2011 Housefin Employees Union (Maharashtra Rajya) Mumbai .. Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Avinash Patangare for the petitioner Mr.I.A.Sayyed for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.V.P.Vaidya for respondent no.3 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 21st MARCH, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent, matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission. 5. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 2 wp1246-11 the petitioner is challenging the order dt.21.12.10 passed by the Presiding Officer of Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.394 of 2009 rejecting the petitioner s complaint under section 28 read with items 9 ’ and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 is appointed on compassionate grounds without following due process of law. He submits that as per Rule 25 of service rules, before appointing any person on clerical post he should be H.S.C. (12th standard) having adequate qualification, knowledge of typing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3 is not holding the said qualification and inspite of that the Labour Court dismissed their complaint. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 supported the judgment of the Industrial Court and submitted that the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.1 and 2 passed resolution dated 26th May, 2009 and amended it in the meeting held on 24th July, 2009 and it is specifically stated therein that respondent no.3 held requisite qualification as she had passed First Year B.A. from Yeshwantrao Chavan Open University. They submitted that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent no.3 was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 3 wp1246-11 8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I went through the complaint filed by the Petitioner, the documents produced by the parties and copy of the judgment. The Industrial Court has considered all those documents and held the appointment of respondent no.3 by respondent no.1 and 2 on compassionate ground was proper and no case was made out by the petitioner of unfair labour practice. 9. I do not find any serious infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Industrial Court and hence, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Industrial Court. In any case, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, I find that the Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of Industrial Court to be rejected at admission stage itself. 10. Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim relief granted by Industrial Court to continue for further period of two weeks. I do not find any reason to continue the same. Therefore, oral application is rejected. (K.K. TATED, J.)