D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Vinod Swamp, learned counsel representing the contesting respondent No 2, at length and in detail.
(2.) THE award of the Labour Court. U, P. at Varanasi dated 30th November, 1985, rendared in Adjudication Case No. 43 of 1982, referred to it uader section 4- K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the U. P. Act, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THE impugned award purports to uphold the termination of the service of the petitioner' to be justified and legal. The petitioner was employed with the contesting respondent no. 2 as a Motor Driver, On a medical examination conducted by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Hindalco hospital on 7th May, 1981 the petitioner was declared to be untit for driving a motor vehicle on account of weak eyesight. According to the employer the incapacity of the petitioner to drive a motor vehicle on the ground of above infirmity could straight away lead to the termination of his service but he was given a notice to submit his explanation Upon receipt of the notice the petitioner expressed a desire for another check-up by an Eye Specialist. He was, therefore, instructed to contact one Dr. Deveadra Srivastava of Allahabad Medical College, but failed to report to the said doctor. Upon his failure to report to the said doctor, relying upon the medical report of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Hindalco Hospital dated 9th May, 1981 and the provisions contained in paragraph 7 a) of the certified Standing Orders of the respondent, an order dated 25th September, 1981 discharging the petitioner from service was passed. The discbarge of the petitioner led to an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court for adjudication and culminated into the impugned award Before the labour court, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the termination of his service was had on the following two counts : (a) that the conclusion of the employer that he was physically unfit to drive a motor-vehicle was wrong; and (b) that the termination of service amounted to retrenchment and the same having been brought about without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 6- N of the U. P. Act was illegal.
(3.) THE pica set up by the petitioner was combated by the employer by asserting that the medical report of the Dy. Chief Medical Officer of Hindalco Hospital being unrebutted, was sufficient to hold that the petitioner was unfit to drive a motor-vehicle: and that termination of the service of the petitioner did not amount to retrenchment obliging compliance of section 6-N of the U. P. Act in as much as it was in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 (a) of its certified standing orders. The plea of the contesting respondent with regard to the physical infirmity of the petitioner leading to his incapacity to drive a motor-vehicle was accepted by the labour court. In accepting the plea of physical infirmity of the petitioner, the labour court relied upon the medical report of the Dy. Chief Medical Officer of Hindalco Hospital dated 17th May, 1989. and rejected the two medical certificated dated 5th October, 1981, and 28th February, 1984, testifying the fact that the petitioner was fit to drive a motor- vehicle, on the ground that they were forged and false.;