IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001 Date of decision: 10.09.2009 Haryana State through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar. ...Petitioner versus Shri Inder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The award in challenge is setting aside an order of premature retirement and directing that the workman shall be treated in continuous service till the normal date of his retirement with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances along with interest at 12% per annum from due dates till actual payment. 2. The premature retirement came to be issued when the workman Shri Inder Singh was found medically unfit for the post of a Driver for driving heavy vehicle and he was directed to be retired under Rule 5.32 of C.S.R., Volume-II in the public interest. The unfitness was purported to arise from an accident in which he lost his eye-sight in one eye and was, therefore, found to be unfit to continue. The Labour Court Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001 - 2 - examined the aspect from the view of a person having been continuously on job of Yard master even after the accident and there was no occasion for slapping a premature retirement from the job of a Driver. The Labour Court observed that without making even an effort to offer any other alternative job, the premature retirement was unjustified. The learned Judge referred the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court apart from the departmental instructions themselves that without exploring the possibility for an alternative appointment, the workman could not have been prematurely retired. The Court took into account that the accident had taken place as early as on 21.03.1979 causing loss to one eye and after enquiry, he had been in duty from 21.03.1979 and that it was unnecessarily to retire him prematurely. 3. I find that the reasoning of the Labour Court is unassailable and the direction contained in the award that he shall be deemed to be continue in service and that he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, were perfectly justified. The learned counsel appearing for the State Mr. Nalwa's only plea is that if the award is to be confirmed, the aspect regarding the award of interest at 12% would still require an intervention since it was unjustified. After the award was passed and when a writ petition was admitted, it is seen that this Court had ordered stayed of the operation of the award, subject only to payment of the benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also states that the workman had already reached the age of superannuation. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed in all respects except that if the amount has not been Civil Writ Petition No.1192 of 2001 - 3 - already paid, the interest component awarded at 12% is modified at 9% per annum. If, on the other hand, the workman had obtained the whole benefit of the relief granted by the Labour Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded. 4. Subject to this minor modification relating to the rate of interest, the award of the Labour Court is confirmed and the writ petition is disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.09.2009 sanjeev