[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Sachiv Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti ... vs Deepak Ramrao Those And Others on 2 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4369
Dilwale 1 judgment-82-WP-1074-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
82 WRIT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2020
1. The Sachiv, Krushi Utpanna Bazar }
Samiti Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur }
2. The Sabhapati, Krushi Utpanna }
Bazar Samiti Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. } ..Petitioners
Versus
Deepak S/o Ramrao Thore, Age-32 Years, }
Occu. Daily Wages Labour, R/o Malewadi }
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur } ..Respondent
...
Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. V. P. Golewar, Advocate for the Respondents.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Reserved on : 27.01.2026
Pronounced on : 02.02.2026
JUDGEMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of
admission by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2019 passed
by the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.3/2016, whereby
complaint filed by respondent no.1 came to be allowed partly and the
petitioner was directed to grant appointment to the
complainant/respondent on compassionate ground on regular basis
within a period of two months from the date of the said order.
Dilwale 2 judgment-82-WP-1074-20.odt
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the policy of
compassionate appointment framed by the State Government is not
applicable to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). He
further submits that as per the Government Circular dated 06.05.2021,
the policy is applicable prospectively, and since the complaint was filed in
the year 2016, the said policy cannot be made applicable.
4. It is further submitted that the father of the respondent was
working as a Class-IV employee (Naik) with the petitioner and died while
in service. Immediately thereafter, the respondent applied for
appointment on compassionate ground. However, he was engaged only
on daily wage basis. According to the learned counsel, since the scheme
of compassionate appointment was not applicable to the APMC, the
respondent could not have been appointed on permanent basis under of
the policy. Despite this, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and
directed the petitioner to grant regular appointment on compassionate
ground.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to
communication gap between the petitioner and the advocate, written
statement could not be filed before the Industrial Court. Without
examining the issue of jurisdiction, the Industrial Court proceeded with
the matter and allowed the complaint only on the ground that the written
statement was not filed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
Dilwale 3 judgment-82-WP-1074-20.odt
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
respondent's father was in service with the petitioner as a Class-IV
employee and died on 31.10.2012 while in service. The entire family was
dependent upon him. Immediately after his death, the respondent
applied for compassionate appointment and was permitted to join with
the petitioner on daily wage basis.
7. He further submits that the policy framed by the State Government
is applicable to the APMC, which is a local authority. Since the services of
the respondent were required, the petitioner initially appointed him on
temporary basis instead of granting permanent appointment on
compassionate ground. Thereafter, the respondent made repeated
representations requesting regular appointment. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Udgir, being the administrative authority, by letter
dated 24.12.2014, directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's
case for compassionate appointment.
8. He further submits that though the respondent completed more
than 240 days of continuous service, he was not regularised. Therefore,
the respondent was constrained to file the complaint. Despite service of
notice, the petitioner chose not to file written statement. Nevertheless,
the petitioner participated in the proceedings, cross-examined the
witnesses, and argued the matter. However, nothing was brought on
record to disentitle the claim of the respondent. Hence, the order passed
by the Industrial Court is legal and proper.
Dilwale 4 judgment-82-WP-1074-20.odt
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, it is not in dispute that the father of the respondent was an
employee of the petitioner and died while in service. Immediately
thereafter, the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate
ground and was permitted to join duties on daily wage basis.
10. Admittedly, the respondent has been working continuously since
2013. Though his application for compassionate appointment was
recommended by the competent authority, no steps were taken by the
petitioner to grant him permanent appointment. Even before the
Industrial Court, the petitioner appeared through counsel, cross-
examined the witnesses, and argued the matter. However, no written
statement was filed, nor was any application made to set aside the No WS
order.
11. Once the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground,
albeit on daily wage basis, and continued in service for several years
completing more than 240 days, the petitioner cannot now be permitted
to deny him the benefit of regular appointment. The Industrial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a just and
proper order. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. Hence I
proceed to pass following order:
Dilwale 5 judgment-82-WP-1074-20.odt
ORDER
i) The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ii) Petitioners shall prepare proposal granting permanency to
respondent and forward the same to the Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune and after receipt of such proposal
Director of Marketing to consider the same as per order passed by
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.3/2016 shall sanction the
same within six weeks from today.
iii) Rule is discharged.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
