Binding settlement controls compassionate appointment; circular-based limitation cannot override roster obligations for minor dependents.

A binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act governed compassionate appointment, and a non-statutory circular could not impose an inflexible six-month bar to defeat that entitlement, especially where the settlement itself contained no limitation period and the circular allowed relaxation. The settlement also required a male dependent aged 15 years or more at the time of death to be placed on a live roster and considered on attaining majority. Failure to keep the dependent on that roster, and rejection of the claim on minority and shifting grounds, was inconsistent with the settlement and unreasonable. The denial of compassionate appointment was therefore unsustainable, and appointment in terms of the settlement was due.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the six-month time limit prescribed by the employer's circular could defeat the claim for compassionate appointment under the binding settlement; (ii) whether the employer was obliged to keep the minor dependent's name on the live roster and consider him for appointment on attaining majority.

Issue (i): Whether the six-month time limit prescribed by the employer's circular could defeat the claim for compassionate appointment under the binding settlement.

Analysis: The entitlement to compassionate appointment flowed from the settlement binding on both parties under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No limitation period was contained in the settlement itself. Even assuming that the employer could prescribe a time limit by circular, such a limit had to be consistent with the settlement, applied reasonably, and treated as directory rather than rigid where the circular itself permitted relaxation. The later circular also showed that the employer did not regard the earlier time limit as an absolute bar.

Conclusion: The time-limit objection could not lawfully defeat the appellant's claim, and the plea of delay was not sustainable against him.

Issue (ii): Whether the employer was obliged to keep the minor dependent's name on the live roster and consider him for appointment on attaining majority.

Analysis: Under the relevant clause of the settlement, a male dependent aged 15 years or more at the time of death was to be kept on a live roster and given employment on attaining 18 years. The appellant satisfied that condition, yet his name was not kept on the live roster and the employer first rejected his claim only on the ground of minority. The subsequent reliance on other grounds was inconsistent with the employer's obligations under the settlement and reflected an unfair and unreasonable approach. The claim for compassionate appointment therefore had to be examined in accordance with the settlement and not defeated by the employer's own omission.

Conclusion: The employer was bound to keep the appellant on the live roster and consider him for appointment on attaining majority, and its failure to do so was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The denial of compassionate appointment was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to appointment in terms of the settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: A compassionate-appointment claim arising from a binding settlement cannot be defeated by a non-statutory circular imposing an inflexible limitation period, and where the settlement requires a minor dependent to be placed on a live roster, the employer must comply with that obligation and act reasonably and bona fide.

---