F A C T Vs. GOPINATHA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Writ Appeal Nos. 2095 and 2096 of 2003 in which common questions of law and fact arise and are directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the two Writ Petitions filed by the respondents in these appeals. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from W.A.No. 2096 of 2003.

(2.) The respondent was an employee of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (for short 'the Company') which is a Government Company within the meaning of S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956. On 26.12.2001 when he was proceeding from his home to the Company on his motorbike he met with an accident and sustained severe injuries on his head. He was taken to the hospital and on the following day he underwent surgery for temporo-parietal acute extradural haematoma and was discharged from the hospital on 17.4.2002. Thereafter he underwent physiotherapy for three months. He was using crutches to walk. While he was under treatment with the hope that he would be able to join duty, the Company directed him to appear before its medical board on 4.5.2003. He appeared before the board and thereafter by order dated 9.6.2003 he was informed that the board found him medically unfit to perform the assigned duties and, therefore, he was being discharged from the service of the Company with effect from 9.6.2003. A cheque towards one month's notice pay was enclosed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of discharge he filed W.P. No. 20631 of 2003 in this Court. Similarly, the respondent in W.A. No. 2095 of 2003 who was an employee of the Company had met with an accident in which the wheels of a bus ran over his legs causing severe injuries and fractures. He too was admitted in a hospital and was able to walk only with crutches. He was also directed by the Company to appear before the medical board and on being found unfit he was discharged from service on 9.6.2003 by a similar order. This order was also challenged in W.P. No. 20634 of 2003.

(3.) Both the Writ Petitions came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 3.11.2003 and these were allowed with liberty to the Company to take steps for getting the respondents examined by a medical board constituted by the Government in accordance with the certified standing orders. It is against this common order of the learned Single Judge that the Company has filed the present Writ Appeals. The learned Single Judge took note of sub clause (c) of Clause.4 of the certified standing orders applicable to the employees of the Company and came to the conclusion that the workmen who are found medically unfit to perform their duties could be discharged from the service of the Company only after obtaining the opinion of a medical board consisting of three doctors constituted by the Government. Since the medical board had not been constituted by the Government, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents had not been examined by a properly constituted medical board and on this ground alone the order of discharge was set aside leaving it open to the Company to have the respondents examined by a medical board constituted by the Government. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that in terms of S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called 'the Act') their services could not be terminated. Since the learned Single Judge found that they had not been examined by a properly constituted medical board, he did not examine this contention and left the issue open.