In Brief
A public transport corporation rejected an employee's son's compassionate appointment application because the son had received motor accident compensation when his father died in a corporation bus accident. The High Court struck down the regulation as discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the regulation is constitutionally valid. It ruled that dependents claiming both compensation and compassionate appointment from the same employer are not similarly situated to those claiming compensation from other parties, justifying different treatment. The classification has a rational connection to avoiding double liability for the employer.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.