COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (M/S) 5589/2001 General Manager, Ordinance Factory Raipur, Dehradun. ……..Petitioner Versus The Labour Court, Dehradun And Other. ……..Respondents Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Assistant S.G. for the petitioner. Sri M.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 2. 4 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.8.2001 (Annexure 1) passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby petitioner was directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the workman/respondent no. 2 on his treatment. 2. Sri Ganesh Kumar, workman/respondent no. 2 is working in the petitioner’s factory as Sweeper. The workman had opted for CS(MA) Rules, which entitle him to medical treatment from Doon Hospital and medical attendants. He was referred to Medical College, Lucknow and Sanjay Gandhi P.G. Medical Institute, Lucknow on various occasions. The workman was paid advance TA by the department. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman by the department under Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules alleging that the workman has been absenting from his duties without any prior permission or sanctioned leave. 3. The workman was suffering from mental disease. He was under treatment since 1990 and was also referred to Lucknow. He submitted the medical bills for reimbursement but only part of the expenditure incurred by the workman on his medical treatment was reimbursed by the department. 4. It was well within the knowledge of the department that the workman has been receiving treatment and he was also referred to various hospitals. The workman was diagnosed for a mental disease mentioned as Schizophrenia and manic depressive-psychosis since 1991. Under these facts and circumstances, the Labour Court rightly observed that departmental enquiry against the workman will only a farce and an empty formality as the workman, who is mentally not sound, will not be able to properly defend himself. Further, the Labour Court has rightly held that since the workman is an optee of CS(MA) Rules, therefore, he is entitled to get the reimbursement of expenses incurred by him on his treatment. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and this Court declines to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 5. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (P.C. Verma, J.) 4.8.2008 Prabodh 2 3