IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001
Date of decision: 10.09.2009
Haryana State through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar.
...Petitioner
versus
Shri Inder Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
—-
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The award in challenge is setting aside an order of
premature retirement and directing that the workman shall be treated in
continuous service till the normal date of his retirement with
consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances along
with interest at 12% per annum from due dates till actual payment.
2. The premature retirement came to be issued when the
workman Shri Inder Singh was found medically unfit for the post of a
Driver for driving heavy vehicle and he was directed to be retired under
Rule 5.32 of C.S.R., Volume-II in the public interest. The unfitness was
purported to arise from an accident in which he lost his eye-sight in one
eye and was, therefore, found to be unfit to continue. The Labour Court
Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001 -2-
examined the aspect from the view of a person having been continuously
on job of Yard master even after the accident and there was no occasion
for slapping a premature retirement from the job of a Driver. The Labour
Court observed that without making even an effort to offer any other
alternative job, the premature retirement was unjustified. The learned
Judge referred the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this
Court apart from the departmental instructions themselves that without
exploring the possibility for an alternative appointment, the workman
could not have been prematurely retired. The Court took into account
that the accident had taken place as early as on 21.03.1979 causing loss
to one eye and after enquiry, he had been in duty from 21.03.1979 and
that it was unnecessarily to retire him prematurely.
3. I find that the reasoning of the Labour Court is unassailable
and the direction contained in the award that he shall be deemed to be
continue in service and that he shall be entitled to all the consequential
benefits, were perfectly justified. The learned counsel appearing for the
State Mr. Nalwa’s only plea is that if the award is to be confirmed, the
aspect regarding the award of interest at 12% would still require an
intervention since it was unjustified. After the award was passed and
when a writ petition was admitted, it is seen that this Court had ordered
stayed of the operation of the award, subject only to payment of the
benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent also states that the workman had
already reached the age of superannuation. The award of the Labour
Court is confirmed in all respects except that if the amount has not been
Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001 -3-
already paid, the interest component awarded at 12% is modified at 9%
per annum. If, on the other hand, the workman had obtained the whole
benefit of the relief granted by the Labour Court, the same shall not be
required to be refunded.
4. Subject to this minor modification relating to the rate of
interest, the award of the Labour Court is confirmed and the writ petition
is disposed of.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
10.09.2009
sanjeev