MAM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is directed against the order of retirement dated 21.9.1987 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamunanagar, retiring the petitioner on medical ground that he has been found medically unfit for the post of Driver due to defective vision. This order was passed when the petitioner was hardly 43 years of age. The petitioner started his service on 4.12.1980 and he was appointed against the quota meant for Ex-service men. The Roadways admittedly is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order on the face of it is an order of retrenchment. The said order could not be passed without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given 15 days pay for each completed year of service. He was only given three month's notice, so, on the face of it, the impugned order is violative of Sec. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) There is another ground on which the impugned order Annexure P. 1 cannot be sustained. The order proceeds to remove the petitioner from service on the ground that he was medically unfit. This shows that the order of removal is justified on the ground that the petitioner was deficient to perform his duties. Before passing such an order, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to hold enquiry as laid down under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. No such enquiry was held. Thus, the petitioner was deprived opportunity to d fend himself. For this reason also, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(3.) However, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's eye-sight is defective. The question of granting appropriate relief has to be considered in the light of this stand of the respondents. In similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Ramaswami CJ and Ujagar Singh, J, in CWP No. 1241 of 1988 decided on 9.2.1988, pissed the following order :