STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 29th August, 2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court. Ambala,-- vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to 50% back wages from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of actual retirement along with all consequential service benefits.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 1 workman was appointed as a Driver on regular basis on 21st December, 1989. The bus which was being driven by respondent No. 1 workman, met with an accident on 1st June, 1992, as a result whereof, his right leg up to the thigh was amputated. He was declared unlit for the post of Driver by the Civil Surgeon. Ambala and based upon the report of the Civil Surgeon. Ambala, the petitioner was retired from service under Rule 5.18 of the Civil Services Rules Vol. II Part-I in public interest with effect from 30th September, 1993 (A.N.) vide order dated 29th September, 1993 (Annexure P-4). On retirement, he was given benefit of the Policy Instructions dated 20th August, 1992 issued by the Transport Commissioner. Haryana. Chandigarh, which were based upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Bihari and others versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Controller, Jaipur and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1003.

(3.) The order of retirement was questioned through a demand notice submitted by respondent No. 1--workman. When conciliation proceedings failed, reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues and proceeded to decide the same in favour of respondent No. 1 -- workman. The Labour Court primarily relied upon the provisions, as contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Lull Participation) Act. 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Disabilities Act. 1995). The order of retirement of respondent No. 1 -- workman is dated 29th September, 1993 (Annexure P-3) which is much earlier to the coming into force of Disabilities Act, 1995 and, therefore, reliance on the same by the Labour Court is not in accordance with law. His further contention is that Rule 5.18 of the Civil Services Rules Vol. II Part-I, under which respondent No. 1 -workman has been retired, has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal versus Transport Commissioner/Controller Haryana and another,1999 4 RSJ 520 wherein this Court, in the case of a similarly placed Driver, has held that the respondents can retire the workman from Government service and he would be entitled to the benefit of the Instructions dated 20th August, 1992. He contends that the petitioner--Management has taken a specific stand that no alternative job was available with the Management on which respondent No. 1--workman could be engagaed, therefore, left with no option, provisions under Rule 5.18 of the Civil Services Rules Vol. II Part-I were pressed into service to retire respondent No. 1-workman. He on this basis, contends that the Award deserves to be set aside as the same cannot be sustained. --is further contention is that the learned Labour Court. Ambala has totally misread the factual aspect as well, as it has been observed in the Award that respondent No. 1 --workman could have attained superannuation by the date the Award was passed i.e. 29th August, 2008, which factually is incorret as respondent No. 1--workman, if taken back in service, would attain the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2013. He, accordingly, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the impugned Award may be set aside.