Harvilas Kushwah Vs. Sports Authority of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - according to the petitioner, the termination would be bad because he was not paid retrenchment compensation. it was observed in the above case that where services of a probationer are terminated on finding that he was found to be medically unfit, this would be bad, because what is required to be proved is continuous ill health. termination was held to be bad......compensation is not required to be paid if it is shown on record that the workman is having continuous ill health. reliance is being placed on section 2(oo) of the act. reliance has also been placed on a decision given by the gujarat high court reported as 1984 lic 837. the opinion of the division bench was expressed by b.l. hansariya, j. (now judge of the supreme court) and it was held that a bald statement that the person is medically unfit is not enough to put an end to the service tenure. it was observed in the above case that where services of a probationer are terminated on finding that he was found to be medically unfit, this would be bad, because what is required to be proved is continuous ill health. the case before the gauhati high court was that of a probationer. termination was held to be bad.3. following the view taken by the division bench of the gauhati high court in the aforesaid case.i find that in annexure p/3 cannot be sustained. merely because a person is suffering from diabetes, it cannot be said that he is unfit. what is required to be shown is continuous ill health. that is not apparent on the record.in this view of the matter, the order annexure p/3.....

Judgment:

ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. Petitioner was employed with LNCPE. He was given employment vide Annexure P/1. This is dated March 3, 1990. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed against the regular scale. This happened on December 18, 1990, Copy of this order is Annexure P/2 on record. Thereafter, vide Annexure P/3, dated January 25, 1991 petitioner's services were brought to an end on the ground that he was suffering from diabetes. It is this order which is being impugned in this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner was found medically unfit. He is stated to be diabetic. This certificate issigned by the medical officer of the Institution.

On the contrary, the petitioner has placed on record certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gwalior to the effect that he is not suffering from this disease. There can be no ground that the petitioner being a workman would be governed by the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His services could be brought to an end in accordance with the provisions of that Act. According to the petitioner, the termination would be bad because he was not paid retrenchment compensation. Retrenchment compensation is not required to be paid if it is shown on record that the workman is having continuous ill health. Reliance is being placed on Section 2(oo) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on a decision given by the Gujarat High Court reported as 1984 LIC 837. The opinion of the Division Bench was expressed by B.L. Hansariya, J. (now Judge of the Supreme Court) and it was held that a bald statement that the person is medically unfit is not enough to put an end to the service tenure. It was observed in the above case that where services of a probationer are terminated on finding that he was found to be medically unfit, this would be bad, because what is required to be proved is continuous ill health. The case before the Gauhati High Court was that of a probationer. Termination was held to be bad.

3. Following the view taken by the Division bench of the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid case.I find that in Annexure P/3 cannot be sustained. Merely because a person is suffering from diabetes, it cannot be said that he is unfit. What is required to be shown is continuous ill health. That is not apparent on the record.

In this view of the matter, the order Annexure P/3 is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to full back wages.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.