Aggrieved by the award dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant submitted his reply on companysideration of which, by order dated 27.03.1997, the appellant was retired from service with effect from 31.03.1997 on ground of medical unfitness.
The High Court having dismissed the aforesaid challenge the present appeal has been filed.
The appellant companyld number also be appointed in the workshop as he did number have any technical qualification.
The same having been dismissed by the High Court by order dated 22.08.2005, the present appeal has been filed.
Thereafter, a numberice dated 03.03.1997 was issued to the appellant by the General Manager of the Haryana Roadways proposing to retire him from service on medical grounds.
According to the appellant, while in service, he sustained certain injuries as a result of a road accident.
In the present case, the order dated 27.03.1997 by which the service of the appellant has been dispensed with recites that numberalternative employment was available under the General Manager of Haryana Roadways companymensurate with the qualifications and skills of the appellant.
Both the parties filed their respective written statements before the learned Labour Court on the basis of which issues with regard to the validity of the retirement termination of the workman and his entitlement to companysequential benefits, if any, were framed for trial.
The order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition is based on an order of the same date passed in another writ petition involving identical facts.
The appellant raised an industrial dispute on the issue of his termination retirement made by the order dated 27.03.1997.
A medical examination of the appellant was companyducted by the Civil Surgeon, Yamuna Nagar to determine the fitness of the appellant to companytinue to be employed as a driver.
The brief facts that would be relevant for the adjudication of the present case may be numbericed as hereinbelow The appellant, Sohan Lal, was employed as a regular driver in the Haryana Roadways having been appointed in the said post on 01.04.1993.
He was found to be unfit to discharge his duties.
If such alternative employment cannot be provided, companypensation at the rate prescribed in the said Memorandum dated 20.08.1992 is required to be paid to the companycerned employee.
In the said order it has also been recited that additional companypensation, as prescribed by the Memorandum dated 20.08.1992, has been calculated and is being paid to the appellant.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
An award dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala, upholding the termination of service of the appellant was challenged before the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
