Writ petition filed to challenge termination order finding petitioner medically unfit as a Management Trainee. Court dismissed the petition, holding Clause 2.9 of appointment allowed termination without notice/enquiry and exempted periodic medical exam under Mining Rules after 12 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP651-14
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 651/2014
(PRITESH RAJU THUL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Shri A.R. Ingole, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rohit B. Deo, A.S.G.I. for the R-1. Shri M. Anilkumar, counsel for the R-2.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2014.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 15.10.2013 terminating his services as Management Trainee (Mining).
The petitioner was appointed as a Management Trainee (Mining) by the respondent no.2-Coal India Limited on 18.01.2013. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner was made after he was found to be physically fit to work as a Management Trainee. The petitioner was served with a termination order dated 15.10.2013 on the ground that he was medically unfit as he was suffering from partial colour blindness. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.10.2013 in the instant petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 29-B(b) of the Mining Rules, 1955, the medical examination of the petitioner could not have been conducted for a period of five years after he was appointed as a Management Trainee on 18.01.2013. It is submitted that the second medical test of the petitioner was conducted only after a period of eight months though it was not permissible for the respondent no.2
WP651-14
2
to conduct the medical examination within a period of five years. It is submitted that the order dated 15.10.2013 casts a stigma on the petitioner and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent no.2 to hold an enquiry before terminating the petitioner’s services. Also, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner may have acquired colour blindness during the course of employment. The learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2014(1) Mh.L.J. 382 ( Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha Versus Diwakar Madhukarrao Malkapure & others ) to submit that the respondent no.2 was obliged to provide alternate employment to the petitioner after it was found that the petitioner was not physically fit to perform his duties as a Management Trainee.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the impugned order dated 15.10.2013. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rule 29-B(b) of the Mining Rules, 1955 to canvass that a medical examination could not have been conducted by the petitioner within a period of five years from his appointment, is illfounded. The provisions of Rule 29-B(b) of the Mining Rules, 1955 are not of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. In fact, the first proviso to Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 29-B clearly provides that a periodic medical examination shall be done at least once in every twelve months. The second medical examination was, therefore, rightly conducted after the petitioner completed eight months of training. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the night blindness may have been caused during the course of employment and, hence, the petitioner should be given a suitable job in the same establishment is without any merit and is liable to be rejected. Firstly, Clause 2.9 of the appointment order, which selects and appoints the petitioner only for the purpose of training
WP651-14
3
clearly stipulates that during the period of training, the services of the petitioner could be terminated by the company without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason. Since the respondent no.2 could have conducted the second medical test on the petitioner within a period of one year and since the petitioner was found to be medically unfit to do the job of a Management Trainee, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent no.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner, specially by taking recourse to Clause 2.9 of the order of appointment. The judgment reported in 2014(1) Mh.L.J. 382 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha Versus Diwakar Madhukarrao Malkapure & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be helpful to the case of the petitioner. In the said reported judgment, the employee was working as a driver with the Corporation since the year 1979 and the driver was removed from service in the year 2002. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed only as a Management Trainee (Mining) and the services of the petitioner were not regularized. Moreover, the services of the petitioner could have been terminated without any notice in view of Clause 2.9 of the appointment order.
We also do not find any merit in the last submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is stigmatic and, hence, a Departmental Enquiry was liable to be conducted before termination of the petitioner. It is reiterated that the petitioner was appointed as a Management Trainee and his services were not regularized. We record the third submission made on behalf of the petitioner only for the sake of rejecting the same as we do not find the order to be stigmatic, in any manner.
WP651-14
4
Since there is no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a periodic medical examination for a Management Trainee can be conducted after the first five years under Rule 29-B(b) of Mining Rules, 1955.
Whether termination of services of a Management Trainee is valid without notice and departmental enquiry when the employee was found medically unfit during training.
Whether termination of a Management Trainee's services constitutes dismissal requiring a burden of proof for stigma.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha Versus Diwakar Madhukarrao Malkapure & othersDistinguished¶16
2014(1) Mh.L.J. 382 · Who else cites this
PRITESH RAJU THUL
UNION OF INDIA
COAL INDIA LIMITED
VASANTI A. NAIK
A.S. CHANDURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
