GROZ-BECKERT ASIA PVT LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P-10), vide which the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination on the ground that the order of termination passed against the workman by the petitioner-Management was in violation of Clause 19(c) of the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to the workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the violation of Certified Standing Orders Clause 19 (c) thereof, is perverse. He submits that the opinion of the Doctor was taken by the Management, which is dated 11.09.2000 (Annexure P-1), where it has been revealed that the workman is habitual smoker and drinker and is suffering from chronic bronchial asthma and if he continues with the said activities, he would be harming himself gravely and at that time, he was unfit for duty. He further submits that earlier also opinion of Doctor was obtained on 15.12.1999 (Annexure P-2), where also the workman was advised not to smoke/drink, which would adversely affect his health. He, on this basis, submits that the requirement of Clause 19(c) of the Certified Standing Orders, as applicable to the workman, stood fully complied with and, therefore, the termination of the service of the workman was fully justified. He further submits that even Section 2 (oo) Clause (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for termination of services of the workman on the ground of continued ill health and, therefore, the termination of the workman would not fall within the provisions of Section 2 (oo) and accordingly, the order of termination was justified.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.