GANESH DUTT DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, in support of the leave, the petitioner had submitted Medical Certificate granted by Registered Ayurved Medical Practitioner. A dispute has been raised by reason of employer's refusal to recognise the said certificate in support of the leave. By means of this petition, the action of the employer in not recognising the Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) MR. O. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Medical Certificate granted by a Registered Ayurved Medical Practitioner is to be treated at par with the Certificate granted by a Registered Allopathic Medical Practitioner. He relies on a Government Order dated 27.10.1950 and Section 39 (2) of the U. P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. According to him, the respondent cannot refuse to recognise the Certificate produced by him and thereby refuse the leave,

(3.) THE said medical certificate as appearing in the Fundamental Rule does not qualify the medical certificate in any manner. THErefore, the said medical certificate is to be treated a medical certificate within the meaning of the Act after the said Act had come into force. According to Section 2 (v) "Practitioner" means a practitioner of an Indian system of medicine. Section 2 (vii) defines "Register" means the register of Vaidyas and Hakims, surgeons and midwives maintained under Section 25. THEn "Registered Practitioner" defined in Section 2 (viii) means a practitioner whose name is for the time being entered in the register. "Vaidya" as defined in clause (x) means a practitioner of Ayurvedic system of medicine and surgery while "Hakim" as defined in clause (xi) means a practitioner of Unani Tibbi system of medicine and surgery. Section 25 provides for maintenance of Register prescribing the Registrar shall maintain a register of Vaidyas and Hakims Practising in Uttar Pradesh in the prescribed form. Section 39 lays down :