Death does not guarantee compassionate appointment: HC

The Bombay high court ruled that the death or medical incapacitation of an employee does not automatically guarantee compassionate appointments for their dependents. The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not an entitlement and can be denied if the family has sufficient means to support themselves. The court partially allowed a petition filed by Air India Ltd challenging a judgment and award that granted permanency status to certain workers. The court set aside the judgment and award, remanding the reference to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently shed light on the criteria for compassionate appointments saying that the mere death or medical incapacitation of an employee does not automatically guarantee the right to such appointments for their dependent ward.

HT Image

The court emphasied that compassionate appointments are not a matter of entitlement and can be denied if the employer deems the family of the deceased employee to have sufficient means to support themselves. “Thus, mere death/medical incapacitation of an employee does not result in the automatic creation of the right of compassionate appointment for his/her dependent ward,” a bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed.

The decision came as the high court bench partly allowed a petition filed by Air India Ltd. (AIL) challenging a judgment and award issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) in which they had granted permanency status to certain workers along with back wages and benefits, a decision contested by AIL.

The case revolves around 45 employees who were initially appointed on a temporary basis by either Air India Charters Ltd. (AICL) or Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. (AIASL). Despite being officially designated under AICL/AIASL, the Tribunal concluded that these appointments were made by AIL on compassionate grounds.

The central issue addressed by the court was whether these initial engagements should be considered as having been made by AIL. The court noted that compassionate appointments are subject to the employer’s formulated scheme, and AIL had such a scheme established through a ‘Record Note’ in 1992.

The court also affirmed a freeze on recruitment imposed by a memorandum dated June 23, 1997, dismissing the Tribunal’s finding as erroneous. The court emphasised that decisions regarding AIASL’s employees rested with the receiving airline, not AIL.

In its ruling, the court criticised the Tribunal’s decision to grant permanency to employees in AIL’s services, citing errors such as the belated demand in 2006 and the directive for AIL to pay full back wages from the initial engagement dates.

The court partly allowed the petition and set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal, remanding the reference to the Tribunal for further consideration considering the court’s observations.