Karnataka High Court
Madhusudhan vs The Management on 24 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.2969 OF 2018 (L-TER)
BETWEEN
MADHUSUDHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#41, 3RD CROSS,
SAMPANGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT,
BONEMILL,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE-560 073,
NOW THE CHANGED ADDRESS:
#11, SRI SHIVA SAI NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, BHOOMIKA LAYOUT,
BEHIND SRI SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE-560 090
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANATHARAM T S, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE MANAGEMENT
M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.21, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREAS,
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CK SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE
2
RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE THE SERVICES OF
THE PETITIONER IN ITS ESTABLISHMENT AT "CUT CHECK LAB"
SECTION WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, FULL BACK WAGES
AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
AWARD DTD 24.11.2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.28/2014 [ANNEXURE-Z]
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 23.11.2022, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"i) Call for records leading to the passing of the award dated 24.11.2017 passed by the 3rd Additional labour court Bengaluru in I. D. No. 28/2014 (Annexure - Z).
ii) Issue a writ of certioraria or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent management to reinstate the services of the petitioner in its establishment at "Cut Check Lab"
section with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential by setting aside the award dated 24.11.2017, passed by the 3rd Additional labour court Bengaluru in I.D. No.28/2014 (Annexure-Z)
iii) Grant any other relief (S) as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice."
3
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed by Respondent-Management on 31.08.2004 as a Trainee at Banjo Line (manufacturing department) for a period of one year. On 01.09.2005, the Management continued his service as 'Probationary' for a period of one year at Banjo Line. On 01.09.2006, the Workman was confirmed as a permanent Workman and was continued as Team Member in Banjo Line and he continuously worked upto 2011. Due to Petitioner suffering from back pain, in February 2011, he was shifted to the 'Cut Check Lab' Section. In March 2014, the Respondent-Management required the Workman to go back to his original place of work i.e., Banjo Line from 'Cut Check Lab'. However, the Workman gave a representation not to shift him from 'Cut Check Lab'. In view of the same, the Management required the Petitioner to undergo a medical examination and accordingly, a medical certificate dated 22.04.2014 was issued. Thereafter, the Management issued a show cause notice dated 16.8.2014 and notified the Workman as to why his services ought not to be terminated vide clause 4 21 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Management. The Petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 18.08.2014. The Management vide termination order dated 28.08.2014, terminated the services of the Workman-Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Workman filed a claim application before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Labour Court') under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') challenging the termination order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Management. The Management entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the proceedings. The Workman examined himself as WW1 and marked Exs.W1 to W82. The Management examined MW.1 and MW.2 and marked Exs.M1 to M46. Vide its award dated 24.11.2017, the Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the Workman. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. It is the contention of the Workman that the termination is improper and that he was being victimized 5 for his Union activities; that the Workman was satisfactorily discharging his duties at the 'Cut Check Lab' for more than three years and that his services at 'Cut Check Lab' was sought to be disrupted by the Management by sending him back to Banjo line only to punish him for his Union activities; that the termination of the Workman by the Management by relying on clause 20 and 21 of the Certified Standing Orders is untenable and the termination is liable to be set aside. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the Writ Petition and prays for granting reliefs sought for therein.
4. In support of this contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following judgments:
1) Western India Match Co. Ltd v. The Third Industrial Tribunal West Bengal and Others1
2) Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Another v. Dilip Kumar Debnath and Ors.2
3) Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Another 3 1 (1978) 1 (SCC) 2 1985 (1) LLJ. 267 (CALCUTTA -DB) 3 1998 (I) LLJ. 1165 (SC) 6
4) Colour Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkar and others 4
5) Workman, Represented By The General Secretary v. General Manager, India Cements Limited 5
6) Ramaswamy Murugesh v. S.G. Bhonsale 6
7) Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited and Others v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy And Others 7
8) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajpal 8
9)Management Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Division II) Limited, Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchanapalli v.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchanapalli and Another 9
10) Maqsood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others 10
11) Lalith Mohan Puri V/s. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.11
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent in support of the award passed by the Labour Court submits that the Workman was appointed in the year 2004 as a Trainee and subsequently, his service was confirmed and 4 AIR (1998) 948 (SC) 5 LAWS(MAD) 1998 8 33 6 LAWS(BOM) 2005 6 21 7 (2013) 8 SCC 345 8 LAWS(DLH) 2015 12 208 9 2018-II-LLJ-550 (MAD) 10 2018-II-LLJ-45 (All) 11 (1991) 105 (DLH) 7 was continuously working satisfactorily as a Welder at Banjo Welding Section (manufacturing Department) of the Respondent-Management company in the year 2006. Thereafter, in the year 2009, he sustained multiple health problems and the Management has supported the Workman because of his health problems by bearing entire cost on his treatment in the year 2011 as well as providing an interest free loan to enable the Workman to treat his low back pain for the period from 21.01.2011 to 28.01.2011 at Swamy Vivekananda Yoga Anusandana Samsthana at company's cost and for the period from 04.09.2012 to 01.12.2012 at Kottakkal Ayurvedic Hospital, Kerala; that due to the inability of the Workman to carry out the job which he was originally appointed to, at the request of the Workman, in the year 2011, he was assigned the minor work at the 'Cut Check Lab' which is not a production line which was for a temporary period to enable the Workman to regain his health. 8
6. Despite the accommodation shown by the Management for nearly three years, when the Management notified the Workman to go back to his original post in the manufacturing line, since he refused to do so due to his health conditions, the Workman was sent for medical evaluation and upon receipt of the Medical Certificate, he was issued a show cause notice dated 16.8.2014 which was replied to by the Workman-Petitioner vide its reply dated 18.8.2014. That in the reply, the Workman did not dispute the contents of the show cause notice nor his medical condition. In view of the same, the Respondent/Management issued order of termination dated 28.8.2014. The said order of termination was issued since, despite availing the treatment, the Workman had requested not to be assigned for regular normal job and continue him in the job he was assigned for as a temporary measure. That the said ancillary work that was given for a temporary period cannot be continued indefinitely as a permanent measure. The Workman was paid for the termination as per Section 25F of the ID Act. 9 Hence, learned counsel for Respondent-Management justifies the termination order and submits that the Management was entitled to terminate the Workman as per clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Management due to continuous ill health of the Workman. Learned counsel further submits that the material on record has been duly appreciated by the Labour Court and the scope for judicial review in such matters being limited, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the following judgments:
1) Burra Kur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Azimuddin Ashraff and Ors.12
2) Marikar (Motors) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.13
3) Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors.14
4) Ashok Kumar and others v. Sita Ram15
5) Ramaswamy Murugesh v. S G Bhonsale16 12 MANU/BH/0189/1960 13 MANU/KE/0379/1985 14 (2001) 8 SCC 546 15 AIR 2001 (SC) 1692 16 MANU/MH/0306/2005 10
6) Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Ors.17
7) Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and ors.18
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent have also filed Written submissions.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The question that arises for consideration is 'Whether the award of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?'
10. The essential facts are not in dispute being the appointment of the Petitioner initially as a Trainee and thereafter as a permanent employee and that he was discharging his duty in the production line of the Respondent- Management. Due to ill health of the Workman, he was assigned to the 'Cut Check Lab' in the year 2011 is also a matter of record. It is contended by 17 (2008) 9 SCC 284 18 (2010) 8 SCC 372 11 the Management that the assignment of the Workman to the 'Cut Check Lab' section was only for a temporary period to enable the Workman to regain his health and the same cannot be continued indefinitely. It is also matter of record that since the Workman sought for continuation of his duty at the 'Cut Check Lab' Section, he was referred for medical examination and the Medical Certificate is issued by the Doctor of the Management. The Medical Examination has also not been disputed by the Workman. It is not disputed that the Workman cannot be posted to his original job as a Welder in the production line due to his ill health. The Labour Court based on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the first party proves that the order of his termination dtd:
28.08.2014 is illegal and arbitrary?
2. Whether the second party justified the order of termination?
3. Whether the second party also proves the alleged misconduct if any by the first party?12
4. Whether the first party is entitled for the relief sought for?
5. What award or order?
11. The Labour Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record elaborately after noticing the evidence of the witnesses examined and has recorded the following findings:
17. On going through the entire file on record, it is clear that the first party has not placed any evidence to come to the conclusion that Ex.M22 is the letter obtained from him under coercion, threat and duress etc. It can be gathered that under the above facts and circumstances of his health issue, the first party has given Ex.M22 voluntarily.
Thus on the basis of Ex.M22 it is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the first party has expressed that he cannot work in the place where he was posted to work.
18. Hence, as the second party management has proved that on the basis of medical officers opinion and the admissions of the first party, as it is established that the first 13 party is having health problem which does not permit to discharge his work, they have terminated him as per Section 21 of the certified standing order. The rulings cited by the authorised representative of the first party are not helpful to the case of the first party.
19. As the first party has been terminated on the ground of his ill-health, the same cannot be termed as punishment for the misconduct and as such, Issue No.3 does not arise for consideration. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative, Issue No.2 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 as does not arise for consideration.
12. It is clear from the aforementioned that the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding of the fact that due to ill health of the Workman, he cannot discharge his original work i.e. welding work.
13. It is clear and forthcoming that the Management did not hold any enquiry before terminating the Workman. It is the case of the Management that since 14 the Workman himself vide his letter dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.M.22) admits that he cannot discharge his original work, the same has been taken to be an admission on the part of the Workman. However, it is clear from a perusal of the said letter dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.M.22), which is also marked as Ex.W.48 before the Labour court and produced as Annexure-J to the Writ Petition that the Workman has narrated the genesis as to how he developed the low back pain. It is forth-coming from the said letter that he was working in manufacturing area of Banjo Line since 2004 and the said job entailed that a part weighing about 28 kgs had to be lifted and the brackets of the said part had to be welded by bending in a certain posture continuously. That since the year 2008 he developed back pain which aggravated over a period of time.
14. The Management has sought to terminate the services of the Workman by relying upon clause 20 and 21 of its Standing Orders. The relevant portion of the same are extracted herein for ready reference: 15
20. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE MANAGEMENT:
20.1 The employment of any permanent workman may be terminated by the Company by giving the workman one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu thereof.
20.2 The employment of a permanent workman shall be liable for termination on the following, among other grounds:
20.2.1 Insanity, Senility, physical infirmity, theft, contagious or
infectious disease, continued ill health, medical in fitness for employment with the Company as declared by the Company's Medical Officer.
Xxxx
21. MEDICAL EXAMINATION:
Any workman may be served with a notice to submit himself for Medical Examination by the Company's 16 approved Medical Officer at any time during the period of his employment with the Company. When required to do so, the workman shall submit himself for such medical examination. Failure to present himself for Medical Examination would render the workman liable for termination of employment.
The Company reserves the right to
terminate any workman found
medically unfit after such Medical
Examination by the Company approved Medical Officer.
15. It is to be noticed that the wording in clause 20.1 entitling the Company to terminate the employment of Workman is 'may'. Further, clause 20.2 refers that the employment of the permanent Workman 'shall be liable for termination' on the ground mentioned therein.
16. The said clause 20.2 does not in any manner indicate that "continued ill health" is required to viewed 17 from the stand point of carrying out the work that the Workman was originally appointed to do.
17. Having regard to the specific language in clause 20.1 and 20.2 of the Standing Orders, it is clear that there exists a discretion upon the Management to terminate or not to terminate and the discretion cannot be exercised capriciously. For the purpose of demonstrating that the exercise of discretion was done in a proper manner, the Management ought to have held an enquiry before any decision to terminate the Workman was taken.
18. In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& Another (supra), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was considering the case where an employee was terminated without conducting an enquiry and a trial Judge had set aside the dismissal. The Division Bench refused to interfere with the said judgment.
19. In the case of Uptron India Ltd., (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case wherein a permanent employee was terminated by issuance of notice 18 since the employee remained absent without an application for leave by relying on a clause in the Standing Order which stipulates that the Workman are liable for automatic termination, if he overstays on leave without permission for more than one week. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the termination holding that it amounted to retrenchment. The order of the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court which held that an employee ought to have been afforded an opportunity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court and held as follows:
5. Conferment of `permanent' status on an employee guarantees security of tenure. It is now well settled that the services of a permanent employee, whether employed by the Government, or Government company or Government instrumentality or Statutory Corporations or any other "Authority" within the meaning of Article 12, cannot be terminated abruptly and arbitrarily, either by giving him a month's or three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof or even without notice, notwithstanding that there may be a 19 stipulation to that effect either in the contract of service or in the Certified Standing Orders.
20. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held after noticing its decisions in the cases of West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Desh Bandhu Ghosh & Ors.19, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. V. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.20 and O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd & Ors. 21 held as follows:
18. The whole case law was reviewed by the Constitution Bench in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors. (1991 - 1 - LLJ- 395), and except the than Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, who dissented, the other 4 judges reiterated the earlier view that the services of a confirmed employee could not be legally terminated by a simple notice.19
1985-I-LLJ-373 20 1986-II-LLJ-171 (SC) 21 1986 - II-LLJ-509 20
19. This being the legal position, the action taken against the respondent, who, as pointed out earlier, was a permanent employee, was wholly illegal.
21. In the case of Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing clause 11(a) of the letter of appointment whereunder the Company could terminate the services of an employee after giving three months' notice in writing without assigning any reason or three months' emoluments in lieu of notice, held that the policy adopted by the Company in the said case of 'hire and fire' was not justified as being arbitrary and the same cannot be enforced. However, it is pertinent to note that the Company in the said case was a Government Company which was under the administrative control over the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India.
22. In the case of Lalit Mohan Puri (supra), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court was considering a case where the workman was terminated on the ground of ill 21 health without holding an enquiry which was upheld by the labour Court. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court set aside the award of the labour Court as well as the termination and reinstated workman into service with full back wages and consequential benefits, inter alia holding that enquiry ought to have been held.
23. In the case of Workman represented by General Secretary (supra), A Division Bench of Madras High Court was dealing with a case where the services of workman was not absorbed due to ill health of the said workman. The Labourt Court had set aside the order of the management and ordered reinstatement with full back wages which was interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench set aside the order of learned Single Judge and affirmed the order of the Labour Court by modifying the back wages to 50%.
24. In the case of Colour - Chem Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of victimization and has held that imposition of 22 shockingly dis-proportionate punishment by itself has to be treated as legal victimisation apart from not being factual victimisation.
25. In the case of Western India Match Co. Ltd., (supra), the Honb'le Supreme Court upheld the order of reinstatement awarded by the High Court and the Industrial Tribunal. The said case pertains to termination of services of a workman who was granted leave due to illness and upon expiry of the leave, since the workman did not report to work due to his illness, he was terminated from service.
26. The case of Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), is wholly inapplicable to the present case in view of the fact that in the said case the Workman was appointed as Driver-cum-fitter and due to an accident the Medical Board of the Management advised light work and he was given the job of a clerk in a store. However, when he reported to work on a particular day, he was informed that his services were no longer required. Pursuant to 23 proceedings initiated at the instance of the Workman, the Labour Court held the termination was bad for the reason for having not taken approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act owing to pending dispute of a reference. The subject matter of proceedings before the High Court was as to whether the termination was the subject matter of the reference.
27. The case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (supra), is also wholly inapplicable to the present case as, in the said case the Workman was dismissed on the ground of being un- authorisedly absent, which was set aside by the Labour Court. The High Court, upon noticing that the Workman suffered from an illness observed that a sympathetic view was to be taken and upheld the order of reinstatement. However, 10% back wages was awarded in the said case.
28. The case of Maqsood Ahmad (supra), is also wholly inapplicable to the present case inasmuch as, the said case pertains to a peon appointed and transferred to a 24 college who was un-authorisedly absent and pursuant to an enquiry conducted in respect of other charges also, it was held by the Nagar Ayukta that the Petitioner was guilty and his pay was reverted to his basic pay and was issued a warning. The order of the Nagar Ayukta was interfered with by the High Court on the ground that the explanation of the Petitioner ought to have been considered sympathetically.
29. In the case of Ramaswamy Murugesh (supra), a Division Bench of Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where the workman was employed as a fitter and he was absent continuously on the ground of illness. The Workman was asked to show improvement in attendance. But there was no improvement in attendance and he continued to remain absent due to sickness. In the said case, the Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge which had upheld the award of the Labour Court in rejecting the case of the Workman who had challenged the termination. However, in the said case, it was held that 25 'continued ill health' has to be given a contextual meaning and a realistic and not a technical or pedantic meaning was required to be placed.
30. In the case of Ramesh L. Bhove (supra), a Division Bench of Bombay High Court was dealing with the case where an employee suffered locomotor disability to the extent of 65% and held that the employee should be treated differently and it should be the endeavor of the establishment to ensure there is no discrimination against of the employee who has suffered disability. The said case has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for Respondent.
31. In the case of Burra Kur Coal Ltd., (supra), a Division Bench of the Patna High Court considering the true and correct meaning of the word 'continued ill health' and held that it includes any physical defect or incapacitating a workman for future work for an indefinite period.
26
32. In the case of Marikar (Motors) Ltd., and Ors. (supra), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Management and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court which had ordered reinstatement of the workman. The order of reinstatement was found to be without any evidence on record to show that the Workman had recovered from his illness.
33. In the case of Basavaiah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the recommendation of expert committee ought not to be interfered with by a Court of law. However, said cases does not pertain to employment of workman in which a medical certificate or medical evidence was being considered.
34. The Respondent has produced a copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Islam. However, the same is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case and does not in any manner pertains to the consideration of the case of termination of employee on the ground of ill health.
27
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others (supra) held that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily interfere with a finding of fact unless the order suffers from manifest error or is patently perverse.
36. Having regard to the settled position of law as is forthcoming from the various judgments relied upon by both the learned counsels, the question as to 'whether the Petitioner who is admittedly a permanent Workman was to be terminated from services of the Management by exercising the power under Clause 20 of the Standing Orders was required to be adjudicated upon by the Management before any decision was taken to terminate his employment?' Admittedly, the Petitioner being the permanent Workman has been terminated on the ground of continued ill health. It is clear from the letter dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.M.22 and W.48) that the Workman developed the low back pain due to the nature of work he was doing. The Labour Court, mechanically, without 28 noticing the contents of the said letter dated 26.03.2014 and continuously the same as an admission of the Workman, dismissed the application which is liable to be interfered with in this Writ Petition.
37. It is not the case of the Management that the Workman was unauthorisedly absent for long periods of time and there was no indication in the near future of him returning to work. The Workman was regularly reporting for work at the "Cut Check Lab". Further, admittedly, the Management did not hold any enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining and arriving at decision that the Workman was not able to carry out any work. As noticed above, Clause 20.2 of the standing orders does not entitle the management to terminate the Workman on the ground of "continued ill-health" vis-à-vis the work that a Workman was originally appointed to do. Mere opportunity given to the Workman to send his reply to the show cause notice is not sufficient.
29
38. In view of the fact that the Petitioner was a permanent Workman, and having regard to the material on record which develops that the health condition of the Workman is a consequence of the work that he was assigned to do, it is the obligation of the management to access the health condition of the Workman and assign him work that he is capable of doing. As noticed above, the Workman was working regularly at the "Cut Check Lab" and there is no material on record that he cannot do any work. Hence, an opportunity is required to be afforded to the Workman by conducting an enquiry to that the relevant material pertaining to the medical/health conditions of the Workman is placed on record before a suitable decision is taken by the management.
39. In view of the foregoing, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed;
30
(ii) The award dated 24.11.2017 passed by the III
Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in
I.D.No.28/2014 is set aside;
(iii) The termination dated 28.08.2014 of the
Petitioner by the Respondent is set aside and the Respondent is directed to re-instate the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order to the "Cut Check Lab" or similar work with full back wages and consequential benefits.
(iv) It shall be open to the Respondent to evaluate the medical/health condition of the Petitioner before assigning him any other work after conducting an enquiry, in accordance with law.
(v) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS