- (1.) VIDE orders dated April 20, 1981, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haryana, Rohtak invalidated the order by which the services of the respondent workman were terminated. The aforesaid decision was rendered on a reference having been made to the Labour Court by the Government under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute between Randhir Singh, workman and the management of M/s. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh.
(2.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether Shri Jaspal Singh, Law Officer of the H. S. E. B. is not competent to represent the management? (2) Whether the written statement is not signed by the competent authority. If not, to what effect? (3) As per the reference. (4) Whether an alternative post was offered to the workman and not accepted by him. If so to what effect?
(3.) WHILE discussing issues Nos. 3 and 4 which are the crucial issues the Labour Court found as a matter of fact that the respondent workman was appointed on October 27, 1972 as Assistant Line-man initially on temporary basis for six months but his term of service was extended from time to time after one day break and in the manner aforesaid he continued to work on the post upto 1975, he continued in service without any service break and therefore, without any extension he was offered regular post of Assistant Line-man on May 9, 1978. One of the conditions mentioned in the letter of his appointment offering him regular job was that he will produce at his cost a health and age certificate required for first entry in the service from the Chief Medical Officer of his district if he belongs to Haryana State or from the Chief Medical Officer, Hissar if he belongs to any other State. The workman did produce the medical certificate declaring him fit temporarily for one year after which he was to report for re-examination of his vision. The Labour Court, in view of the facts that have been stated above came to the conclusion that even though the petitioner was offered another job it was a case of retrenchment from the post that the petitioner was holding i. e. , Assistant Lineman and that being so, the petitioner management had to serve him a notice as also to pay him retrenchment compensation. It was further held that the Chief Medical Officer Sirsa had not declared the workman permanently unfit on account of his vision and there being only some temporary defect in his vision it could be cured and the decision to remove him from service could not be taken. It was further held that the order of termination had been issued by the S. D. O. who was not authorised to pass the order as it was the Executive Engineer who was a competent authority in this behalf.;