JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Management seeking to quash the award dated April 24, 1993 made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Shimla, in reference case No. 3/1992, titled Dila Ram v. Purewat and Associates Limited. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company with its Registered Office at Kasauli, District Solan. Respondent-workman Shri Dila Ram had been employed in the Factory of the petitioner-Management at Jubbar. The respondent-workman suffered attack of Epilepsy and he was directed by the petitioner-Management to get himself medically examined and treated. It is stated by the petitioner-Management that instead of getting himself treated, the respondent-workman got the reference made to the Labour Court for decision of his claim of reinstatement. On a reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, directed the petitioner-Management, vide award dated February 4, 1991 passed in Ref. No. 130/1990 to reemploy respondent-workman without deciding reference on merit and the petitioner-Management had no choice left, except to re-employ him. It is also stated that inspite of the kind attitude shown to the respondent-workman, he was still suffering from Epilepsy attacks and therefore, he was asked on June 16, 1991 to proceed on medical leave till he was declared medically fit by a competent doctor. The respondent-workman instead of getting himself medically treated from a competent doctor and getting certificate from him that he was fully cured and fit to resume duty, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and served a Demand Notice dated July 8, 1991 on the petitioner-Management. As a consequence of Demand Notice, the Labour Inspector, Solan, initiated Conciliation Proceedings which failed and ultimately a failure report was submitted to the State Government.
2. The State Government, thereafter, preferred the dispute to the Labour Court vide Notification dated December 27, 1991 marked Annexure P-3. The reference reads as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Purewal and Associates Limited, Jubbar, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in not taking Shri Dila Ram son of Shri Sees Ram, on duty w.e.f. June 16, 1991 to October 22, 1991 even after submitting the medical certificate is legal and justified? If illegal, to what amount of pay and other service benefits for the said period, Shri Dila Ram is entitled?”
3. The respondent-workman submitted his claim before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, which was resisted and decided by the petitioner-Management. The Labour Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the backwages as claimed? OPP
2. Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged? OPR
3. Relief.
4. The Labour Court decided both these issues against the petitioner-Management and in favour of the respondent-workman directing the petitioner-Management to pay wages for the period June 16, 1991 to October 22, 1991 and also burdened the petitioner-Management with cost of Rs. 200/-
5. The petitioner-Management has assailed the impugned award by way of this Writ Petition on the ground that the learned Labour Court has mis-directed itself in allowing the claim of the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman was asked by the petitioner-Management to get himself treated properly and produce the fitness certificate from a competent doctor, but, instead of doing so he has been dragging the petitioner-Management to unnecessary litigation before the Labour Court.
6. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides and examined the material on record. The learned Counsel of the parties have based their submissions pleaded by them in the Writ Petition and reply affidavits. The respondent-workman in his reply has stated that when he had been declared fit by the doctor in all respects to discharge his duties and functions it was not proper for the petitioner-Management to have substituted their own opinion over that of the Doctor/ Medical Experts who certified him fit to resume his duties. He contended that the petitioner-Management wanted to harass him on one pretext or the other and he was intentionally and deliberately obstructed from performing his duties. It is also stated that the findings of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the petitioner-Management cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to upset the findings of fact.
7. During the course of hearing of the petition, the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman could not and rightly so defend the validity and legality of the impugned award. The Presiding Officer of Labour Court has dealt with both these issues together and recorded its findings in favour of respondent-workman and against the petitioner-Management. It is pertinent to abstract the relevant portion of the conclusion of the Labour Court which reads as under:
“It is not proved on record that according to the terms of the employment contract, the petitioner is unable to perform duty. The nature of the disease and medical treatment at least does not warrant at present to hold that the respondent-Management was justified in not allowing the petitioner to join duty w.e.f. June 16, 1991 to October 22, 1991 in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The management should be liberal in such types of cases to grant relief and take the petitioner on duty on production of a medical certificate. The management should also not drag the petitioner to litigation. I, therefore, for the reasons recorded decide both these issues accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-Management holding that the respondent-Management was not justified in not allowing the petitioner to be on duty w.e.f. June 16, 1991 to October 22, 1991.”
The petitioner was also awarded costs of Rs. 200/-
8. A bare perusal of the reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court would go to show that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has decided the reference without application of mind. The two issues were framed by the Labour Court and one of the issues was whether the reference was not maintainable and no finding has been recorded by the Presiding Officer, on this issue. It was the legal duty of the Presiding Officer, to have embarked upon the jurisdictional issue about the maintainability of the reference which was a primary question raised before it and without deciding the maintainability of the reference, no relief ought to have been granted by the Tribunal. The award appears to have been passed in hot haste manner and without following the procedure of law and further without proper appreciation of the material on record. The Labour Court has miserably failed to answer the reference in its proper perspective and on legal ground, therefore, the award is unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside on this short ground without going further into the merits of the case.
9. For the abovesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.
10. The Labour Court is directed to restore the reference to its original number and decide the dispute in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after giving due and reasonable opportunities to the parties concerned. Record of the Labour Court be remitted forthwith.