Judgment

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:-This appeal by special leave challenges the award of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad, by which the respondent an employee of the appellant Corporation was directed to be reinstated and paid as compensation half the wages including dearness allowance from the date of his discharge till the date of his reinstatement in service. The respondent was appointed by the appellant on June 13, 1967 as a temporary Senior Assistant on conditions set out in the letter dated June 13, 1967. The respondent s services continued to be temporary as no order of appointing him on probation was passed, and on the ate when his services were terminated by an order dated January 6, 1971, he was in temporary service.

2. According to the respondent s statement of claim in September-October 1970 he was not keeping good health, none-the-less he used to attend to his duties. However, in October 1970 his health deteriorated further and he went on sick leave for five days from October 14 to October 18, 1970. Thereafter though he joined and worked he was under treatment. Then all of a sudden his health took a turn for the worse and after the medical examination by his physician he was advised rest and medical treatment for one month. In view of this advice he made an application on November 7, 1970 for one month leave on the ground of illness accompanied by a medical certificate of K. J. Vaidya who was a registered medical practitioner, but the appellant did not give any reply immediately. Later the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent asking him to "join duties at once" because there was nothing wrong with his health and his leave was not sanctioned.

3. We shall advert to the correspondence in greater detail later, but for the present it is sufficient to set out what has been narrated by the Special Labour Court, according to which the concerned workman (the respondent) after receiving the reply on November 14, 1970 wrote to the Corporation that the said superior officer was not qualified to opine about his health and it was necessary for him to take rest as medically advised. He also stated that he wanted to consult a physician in Bombay and if he decided to go there he would intmate his Bombay address to the Corporation. He alleged that this letter was not immediately replied. Thereafter, the concerned workman proceeded to Bombay and started receiving treatment from one Dr. K. C. Mehta, M. D. (Bom), F.C.P.S. He then received a letter from the Corporation requiring him to report immediately to the Corporation for being sent for a medical examination by the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad. The concerned workman contended that if he was required to be examined by the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad, he should have been informed about it before he left for Bombay and according to him, this was not a bona fide direction. The concerned workman then sent a medical certificate obtained from his doctor with his letter dated 9-12-1970, asking for further leave. The concerned workman then received a letter dated December 24, 1970 requiring him to report to the Corporation within two days and informing him that if he failed to do that, he would be dismissed from service. He then returned to Ahmedabad and wrote a letter dated January 4, 1971 to the Corporation that he was prepared to submit for the examination by the Civil Surgeon. Ahmedabad, and he should be sent an authority for the purpose. According to the concerned workman, instead of granting this request, the Corporation sent a letter dated January 6, 1971 together with a discharge order, informing him that he was discharged with effect from November 9, 1970. The concerned workman contended that the action taken against him was illegal and improper; that the Corporation had no authority to require him to submit for examination by the Civil Surgeon; that it could not have rejected a certificate from a registered medical practitioner; and, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated with ful