Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 365
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : Yogeshwar Dayal
Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Versus
Presiding Officer
Case No. : 2194 of 1994
Date of Decision : 3/28/94
A medical board's age determination for retirement cannot be set aside based on surmises and conjectures, especially if the employee acquiesced to the finding to continue service and no specific evidence of the board's incompetence was provided.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Dispute - Determination of age for retirement - Medical Board's opinion - Validity of retirement - Tribunal set aside medical opinion of Board constituted by management and directed fresh examination by Civil Surgeon - High Court dismissed management's petition - Tribunal not justified in setting aside medical opinion based on surmises and conjectures - No objection raised regarding competence of doctors constituting the Medical Board - Workman accepted the age determination and continued in service for two years without challenge - Dispute raised only after retirement without justification. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
A workman was certified as 58 years of age by a Medical Board constituted by the management. Based on this report, he was permitted to work for two more years and retired upon attaining the age of 60. Post-retirement, the workman challenged the age determination. The Industrial Tribunal, concluding that the Medical Board lacked scientific expertise, ordered a fresh medical examination by a Civil Surgeon. The High Court dismissed the management's writ petition against the tribunal's order.
Findings of Court:
The retirement of the workman at the age of 60 years was valid and in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in setting aside the medical opinion of the management's Medical Board and ordering a fresh examination by a Civil Surgeon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a medical opinion regarding age cannot be set aside based on surmises and conjectures, particularly when no evidence of the doctors' incompetence was presented and the workman had previously accepted the age determination to continue service for two additional years, raising the dispute only after retirement without justification.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) JAINARAIN Mahatha, respondent in the appeal herein, was working as pump operator in the service of the appellant-company. On 3/6/1986 the Medical Board (Apex Medical Board) constituted by the appellant-management medically examined the respondent and certified that the respondent, on the date of examination, was 58 years of age. On the basis of the medical report the respondent was permitted to work with the management for another two years and on his attaining the age of 60 years he was retired from service in June 1988.
(3) AFTER retirement, the respondent, raised a dispute which was referred by the central government to the Industrial tribunal. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the Medical Board constituted by the management was not adequately equipped with scientific expertise and as such the age of the workman was not correctly determined by the Medical Board. In that view of the matter the tribunal directed that the workman be medically examined from the Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad for the purposes of determination of his age afresh. The writ petition filed by the management against the order of the tribunal was dismissed by the High court in limine.
(4) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the tribunal was not justified in setting aside the medical opinion regarding the age of the respondent-workman determined by the Medical Board constituted by the management. No objection was raised before the tribunal regarding the competence of the doctors constituting the Medical Board. We fail to understand how the medical examination by the Civil Surgeon would be different than that of the Medical Board constituted by the management. The findings of the tribunal are based on surmises and conjectures. In any case the respondent-workman was told on 3/6/1986 after his medical examination was done by the Board constituted by the management that he was 58 years of age and could be retained in service for two more years. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board at that stage. He raised the dispute only after retirement without any justification.
(5) WE allow the appeal, set aside the order of the tribunal and that of the High court and hold that the retirement of the respondent-workman at the age of 60 years in June 1988 was valid and in accordance with law. No costs.
