Letters Patent Appeal No.346 OF 2009 Against the judgment/order dated 15th January 2009 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No.1893 of 1996. ----------- 1. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, A.D. Building, Barauni Refinery Campus, Begusarai. 2. Deputy Manager (Personnel), Barauni Refinery, Begusarai,… Respondents/Appellants versus 1. Rabindra Natha Mishra, S/O Late Muktinath Mishra, R/O Qr. No.E-3/54, Refinery Township, P.S. Town Begusarai, Dist-Begusarai………Writ petitioner-Respondent 1st Party 2. Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad……Respondent-2nd Party. ----------- For appellants:- Sri K.N. Gupta, Advocate Sri Satendra Krishna Prasad, Advocate For respondents:- Sri Shivaji Pandey, Sr.Advocate Sri Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate Sri Amrendra Kumar, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Chief Justice & Shiva Kirti Singh, J.J. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) against the judgment and order dated 15th January 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC. No. 1893 of 1996. 2. The Respondent No.1, a technician (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Workman’), while in service of the Corporation suffered serious injury on 7th May 1985. On account of the disability suffered by the Workman he was rendered unfit for service. As he was 2 declared permanently and totally disabled, by order dated 31st August 1987 the service of the Workman was terminated with effect from 13th August 1987. Along with the order of termination of service the Workman was paid one month’s wages in lieu of notice; was paid compensation; the Corporation offered employment to one of the dependent family members of the Workman and; was paid the other dues as per the rules. After some two months and a half, by order dated 9th December 1987, the Corporation decided to pay two months’ more wages and the difference of lump sum compensation of Rs.16,375/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman raised industrial dispute. The industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and was registered as Reference Case No. 80 of 1992. 3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 25th September 1995 dismissed the Reference. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman preferred CWJC. No.1893 of 1996 before this Court. The learned single Judge, by impugned judgment and order dated 15th January 2009, allowed the petition. The learned single Judge relied upon the Standing Order Nos.17 and 22 to hold that the order of termination of service of the Workman was defective inasmuch as the Workman was not given notice of three months or three months’ wages in lieu of such notice as envisaged by Standing Order No.17. In 3 view of the said finding, the learned single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and to quash and set aside the order of termination dated 31st August 1987 and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred the present Appeal. Learned counsel Mr. K.N. Gupta has appeared for the Corporation. He has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has relied upon Standing Order No.4. He has submitted that Standing Order No.4 contemplates termination of service of a Workman on medical grounds. The said Standing Order does not provide for a notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice. The Corporation was, therefore, not obliged to give notice of termination to the Workman or to pay wages in lieu of such notice. He has submitted that the learned single Judge was wrong in invoking the Standing Order No.17 which provides for discharge and termination of service. The termination of service referred to in Standing Order No.17 is necessarily a termination simplicitor and not the termination of service on medical grounds covered by Standing Order No.4. He has next submitted that in any view of the matter, the Corporation did pay three months’ wages in lieu of notice. One month’s wages was paid with the order of termination of service. The remaining two months’ wages was 4 paid within less than three months. The Corporation ought to have been held to have complied with the Standing Order No.17. He has next submitted that though the service of the Workman has been terminated in the year 1987, he still has not vacated the residential quarter allotted to him. For past 23 years he has occupied the residential quarter free of cost without the authority of law. 5. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Gupta. The Standing Order No.4 enables the Corporation to terminate the service of the Workman who is declared medically unfit for service by the Medical Board. While Standing Order No.17 provides for procedure to be followed in case of discharge and termination of service. The Standing Order No.17 empowers the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee by assigning reasons after giving, in case of permanent workman, three months’ notice or payment of wages in lieu of such notice. The Standing Order No.22 categorizes the termination of service that includes termination on medical grounds. 6. In our view, Standing Order No.4 enables the Corporation to terminate the service of a workman on medical grounds, but not without following the procedure envisaged by Standing Order No.17. It is not in dispute that the Workman was a permanent workman. We agree with the learned single Judge that the 5 Corporation was under obligation to give three months’ notice of termination of service to the Workman or to pay three months’ wages in lieu of notice. Three months’ wages in lieu of notice ought to have been paid with the order of termination of service. Later payment of wages even in part was in breach of the procedure laid down in Standing Order No.17. The order of termination of service was thus defective and has rightly been set aside by the learned single Judge. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Appeal in limine. 8. We are informed at the bar that since termination of his service the Workman has reached the age of superannuation in the year 1993. We, therefore, direct that the Workman will be entitled to receive the wages from the date of termination of his service till he reached the age of superannuation and to the difference of amount of terminal dues, if any. 9. The learned Advocate, Mr. Pandey appearing for the Workman agrees that the Workman was paid compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that the amount of compensation paid to the Workman may be adjusted against the backwages payable to the Workman. He also admits that the Workman has retained the residential quarter in spite of termination of his service and even after 6 his reaching the age of superannuation till the date. He agrees that the Workman will vacate the residential quarter in his occupation within three months from today. 10. In view of the above facts, we direct that the appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited will pay to the Workman the amount of backwages less the amount of compensation paid to the Workman and the amount of difference in terminal dues, if any, within one month from today. The Corporation will be entitled to charge a nominal rent for the residential quarter retained by the Workman. Such amount of nominal rent will be adjusted against the amount payable to the Workman under this order. In the event, the Workman fails to vacate the quarter within three months from today as agreed, the Corporation will be at liberty to recover the market rent from the Workman and to evict the Workman forcibly. Patna High Court The 29th of June, 2010 Md. Perwez Alam/AFR (R.M. Doshit, C.J. ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)