Termination of services due to continued ill-health under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act is valid, but equitable considerations necessitate compensation for workmen suffering job-related disabilities.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Rahis Ahemad Khan) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Award dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Gurgaon (here-in-after referred to as 'the Tribunal'); whereby, the reference of industrial dispute regarding termination of services of the petitioner was answered against him.

2. Briefly, the petitioner-workman, who is stated to be 10+2 pass and possess ITI Diploma in Fitter, joined respondent No.1 (M/s Machino Plastic Limited) as a Machine Operator on 05.10.1987. It is the case of the petitioner that while working on a machine in the factory premises, he met with a serious accident on 28.04.1993; whereupon, he was admitted to the hospital and since the injuries were serious, accordingly, it took long time for its treatment and ultimately, he was issued a fitness certificate on 04.04.1997. However, when the petitioner went to the factory to join his duties on 05.04.1997, he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the management on 10.04.1997; however, again he was not allowed to join his duties. As per the petitioner, he submitted a certificate issued by IGESI Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi, recommending that the petitioner may be considered for lighter work as he was physically disabled upto 75%. It is stated that the management had left the petitioner at his own fate after the accident and the attitude of the management was callous towards him inasmuch as, that even a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 07.02.1996 for alleged absence from duty, however, no further action was taken in that regard.

Being aggrieved by the illegal termination of services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 13.10.1997 on the employer. However, upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal below for adjudication. It appears that the demand notice was treated as the statement of claim on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The afore-said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent-management; wherein the factum of accident as well as the injuries suffered by the petitioner was admitted. It was also admitted that the petitioner remained under treatment in E.S.I. Hospital as well as in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The termination of the petitioner was sought to be justified under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act') by stating that under the said provision, the employer can terminate the services of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether termination of services of Sh. Rahis Ahamad is not justified and if so, to what relief, he is entitled to ?

2. Relief ?

5. In order to prove his case, petitioner-workman examined himself as PW-1 besides proving documents Ex. P-1, Ex.P-2, Mark-1 and Mark-2, respectively and thereafter, the evidence from the petitioner's side was closed.

6. On the other hand, respondent No.1-management examined Sh. Naveen Chahar as MW-1 besides proving documents Ex.MW-1/1 and Ex.MW-1/2 and thereafter, the evidence from the side of respondent No.1- Management was closed.

7. After considering the material/evidence available on the record, the learned Tribunal below answered the reference against the petitioner-workman by rejecting his claim by holding that in terms of the standing orders of the management, the petitioner-workman was discharged from service due to continued ill-health. Accordingly, it was concluded that dispensing with the services of the petitioner-workman on the ground of continued ill-health cannot be said to be wrong or illegal, in any manner.

8. Being dissatisfied with the afore-said Award, the petitioner has filed the insta