W.P. No.11701.09 Writ Petition No. 11701 of 2009 30/08/2011 Shri M. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. S. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent. With consent matter is heard finally. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15-06-2009 passed by Industrial Court, Rewa; whereby, the appeal preferred by respondent/workman against the order dated 22-10-2008 passed by the Labour Court in Case No. 22/2000 under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960') has been allowed. Respondent while engaged as Driver with the establishment of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and posted in the Office of Executive Engineer (O & M), Sidhi Division, was compulsorily retired on 29-07-2000 on the ground of medical unfitness due to colour blindness. Being aggrieved respondent-workman filed an application under section 31(3), 61 & 62 of the Act of 1960. The Labour Court by order dated 22-10-2008 dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that W.P. No.11701.09 having given an opportunity to opt for an alternate job, the workman declined to exercise the said option, therefore, his compulsorily retirement was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order respondent/workman preferred an appeal under section 65 of the Act of 1960. The said appeal was decided on 15-06-2009; whereby, the decision rendered by the Labour Court dated 22-10-2008 was set aside. The employer/petitioner was also directed to pay the entire wages up till the age of superannuation (pertinent it is to note that the respondent/workman during pendency of the case before the Labour Court/Industrial Court retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-07-2000). Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with vehemence, has put forth the submission that the finding recorded by Industrial Court in paragraph 8 that the workman had tendered his option, is perverse. The submission when tested on the anvil of the statement of the workman recorded before the Labour Court falls on all fours. Before the Labour Court it was categorically stated by the workman that “eSa foi{kh laLFkku esa tuojh 79 ls dk;Z dj jgk FkkA esjh fu;qfDr fnukad ls gh pkyd ds in ij dk;Z dj jgk FkkA esjh fu;qfDr ds le; pkydksa dk esMhdy ijh{k.k ugha gksrk Fkk W.P. No.11701.09 vc gksrk gSA esjk LokLF; ijh{k.k 98 esa djk;k x;k FkkA esMhdy cksMZ us vkW[kksa esa dyj CykbafMl dh fjiksVZ nh FkhA mlds ckn esa e.My ds dk;Z ij izfrfnu mi0 gksrk FkkA eq>ls ekSf[kd dk;Z ysrs FksA dHkh cqykus dk dk;Z dHkh dkxtkr b/kj m/kj djus dk dk;Z ysrs FksA esMhdy fjiksVZ ds vkus ds ckn eSa dk;Z ij mifLFkr jgrk Fkk fdUrq eq>s osru ugha fn;k tkrk FkkA eSaus e.My ls osru dh ekax fd;k FkkA fdUrq osru ugha fn;k x;k gSA dkj.k ugha crk;k x;kA izfrekg esjs osru dk is fcy curk Fkk ysfdu osru ugha fn;k tkrk FkkA e.My ls eq>s pkyd ds vykok vU; dk;Z gsrq lgefr i= izkIr gqvk FkkA mldk tcko eSaus e.My dks fn;k Fkk eSaus tcko fn;k Fkk fd eq>s Hk`R; cuk fn;k tk;s fdUrq e.My us ugha cuk;kA eSaus vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k Fkk fd osru ogh fn;k tk, tks pkyd dk osrueku FkkA” In view of categorical stand of the respondent/workman before the Labour Court and the fact that despite of having opted for an alternative job, the action of the petitioner in compulsorily retiring the respondent/workman has rightly been held to be bad by the Industrial Court. Since we perceive no error in the approach of the Industrial Court, we refrain to interfere with the same. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) sc JUDGE JUDGE