Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C. And Anr. vs Riyaz Ahmad And Anr. on 3 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: RLW2003(2)RAJ750, 2002(5)WLC375
Author: Gyan Sudha Misra
Bench: Gyan Sudha Misra
JUDGMENT Misra, J.
1. An award has been passed in favour of the respondent-workman No.1 Shri Riyaz Ahmed whose services were terminated by the petitioner-Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') on the ground of weak eye-sight. The respondent-workman No.1 Shri Riyaz Ahmed raised an industrial dispute in regard to his termination which was referred to the Labour Court Jaipur and after its adjudication, an award was passed in his favour directing his reinstatement alongwith 50% backwages for the period during which he was out of service.
2. The petitioners-RSRTC, feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid award, has filed this writ petition and while challenging it the counsel for the petitioner-R.S.R.T.C. Shri Manish Bhandari relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court Anand Bihari vs. RSRTC and Ors., submitted that, in view of this judgment, if the services of an employee on the ground of ill-health is terminated, the same cannot be treated as illegal. It was submitted, that this judgment was over-looked by the Labour Court and ignoring the ground of ill-health, the respondent-workman No.1, has been ordered to be reinstated with 50% of backwages which is not fit to be sustained. This position cannot be held otherwise and hence the order of his reinstatement with 50% backwages in view of the ratio of this decision cannot be sustained and hence it stands set aside.
3. However, considering the fact that, the respondent-workman No.1 has discharged his duties for a period of 21 years with an unblemished record of service, the retiral benefits considering the period of his services which he has discharged which will also include that period during which he was out of service, cannot be ignored as his services were not terminated on account of any misconduct but it was due to the force of circumstance of ill-health which was beyond the control of the petitioner. In a circumstance of this nature, where the employee has duly and diligently discharged his duties and later suffered disability which was beyond his control, the termination simpliciter denying even retiral benefits would be extremely harsh and illegal which cannot be sustained.
4. The counsel for the petitioners Shri Manish Bhandari has fairly accepted that the petitioners in a circumstance of this nature cannot be denied retiral benefits and hence the petitioner is directed to take into consideration the period of service rendered by the respondent No. 1 Shri Riyaz Ahmed and also to take into account that period during which he was out of service for the purpose of retiral benefits since the order of termination was passed without taking into consideration that his services could not have been termination on the ground of ill-health denying him the due retiral benefits which should have been paid to him on the date of his termination. That having not been done, the period during which he was out of service; shall also be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits.
5. For the reasons stated hereinbefore the authorities are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards his retiral benefits to which he is entitled, within a period of two months from today and thereafter pay the same expeditiously.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed subject to the aforesaid direction.