Summary
A 1981 industrial award against the then Ahmednagar Municipal Council required jobs for the heirs of Class-IV employees who retired, died or became invalid. In 2005, on the employer's notice of change, a later award limited this to compassionate appointment under government norms. The Industrial Court and the High Court nonetheless enforced the 1981 award for heirs of retired employees, and the High Court ordered appointments or Rs. 5 lakh compensation. The Supreme Court set these orders aside. After the council became a Municipal Corporation in 2003, its employees were governed by the State scheme, the 2005 award had modified the earlier one, and appointing the heirs of retiring employees offends Article 14.
Issues
- Whether, after the 2005 modification and the council's conversion into a Municipal Corporation, the heirs of retired employees could still claim appointment under the 1981 award
- Whether appointing the heirs of employees on retirement or superannuation, whether called compassionate appointment or 'varas hakka', is consistent with Articles 14 and 15
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 15, Constitution of IndiaAppointing the heirs of employees on retirement or superannuation was held contrary to equal opportunity, because it shuts out more meritorious outsiders. (¶ 8)
Held
- After the Municipal Council became a Municipal Corporation in 2003, its employees were governed by the State Government's scheme at par with government employees. That scheme allows no appointment to the heirs of retiring employees, and compassionate appointment must follow the scheme as modified. (¶¶ 5, 7)
- The 2005 award, made on the corporation's notice of change, had modified the 1981 award. It confined the benefit to compassionate appointment for the heirs of deceased employees, with the health-department Class-IV exception, after noting misuse and the exclusion of reserved-category and other candidates. The Industrial Court and the High Court could not rely on the 1981 award afterwards. (¶ 6)
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to normal recruitment, intended for a family left without support by an employee's death in harness. It is not automatic, depends on scrutiny of the family's finances and dependence, and creates no vested right. Extending it to the heirs of retiring employees defeats its object and violates Article 14. (¶ 8)
- Calling the benefit 'varas hakka' (hereditary right) does not save it. It rests on no scheme and would also offend Articles 14 and 15. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's common judgment of 22.03.2022 and the Industrial Court awards of 16.09.2016 and 21.09.2016 directing appointment of heirs of retired employees were quashed; no order as to costs.