JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity and correctness of Award dated 29.7.2000 passed by Shri G.P. Mittal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court – III whereby directions were given to the petitioner management to reinstate respondent No. 2 workman in the service with 50% backwages and continuity of service. 2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the workman is governed by the Central Civil Services and Central Conduct Rules, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference referred by the then Delhi Administration and the appropriate Forum to entertain the grievance of the respondent workman is the Central Administrative Tribunal which alone had the jurisdiction to try and entertain the disputes raised by the respondent workman. The other ground of challenge taken in the present petition is that the services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner management as he was found to be medically unfit and, therefore, no benefit of the backwages could have been given to such an employee whose services were terminated for no other reason but on account of his being medically unfit person. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and gone through the record. 4. Vide orders dated 14th May, 2002 passed by this court the respondent workman was directed to report on duty w.e.f. 1.6.2002 as on revaluation and examination by the Medical Board he was found medically fit to perform his duties. The order dated 14th May, 2002 further shows that the only question left to be examined in this case was to test the legality of the impugned Award directing grant of backwages to the extent of 50%. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the services of respondent were terminated after he was not found medically fit to perform his duties on the post of Mali beldar and therefore, no fault could be found with the decision of the petitioner management in passing the order of the termination and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay any backwages to the respondent workman effective from the date of the termination till the date of the Award. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 10th July, 1991, through which the said termination order was passed. The said order in verbatim has been reproduced in the impugned Award. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that the respondent workman got himself medically examined from Gulabi Bagh TB Centre run by the MCD itself who declared him fit to do any kind of job. He was also medically examined by one Dr. S.K. Aggarwal, who certified the respondent workman to be absolutely fit to resume his duties. All these certificates were submitted by the respondent workman, but still his representation dated 2.8.1991 was rejected, the same being not in accordance with rule SR 4 of Fundamental Rules. Counsel for the respondent further urged that as per the said rule the respondent workman was never properly informed as to in what format he was required to submit a medical certificate but he was simply told to get himself medically examined by at least two medical officers possessing MBBS qualification and acting upon the said advice the respondent workman had produced the medical certificate from senior Medical Officer of the chest clinic Gulabi Bagh and from the Medical Officer of the LNJP hospital. Counsel thus contends that the petitioner management itself has acted against the said fundamental rule and in utter haste took a decision to terminate the services of the respondent workman. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take up the issue of disputing the jurisdiction of the Labour Court at this stage when no such issue was raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Rather the petitioner by not pressing the issue No. 1 conceded to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and therefore, he is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court before this Court. I find force in the argument of the counsel for the respondent. Based on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Labour Court vide order dated 16.9.1998: .(1) Whether the claimant is not a workman and respondent is not an industry under the I.O. act? .(2) Whether the claimant was foundmedically unfit at the time of regularization, if so, its effect? .(3) As in terms of reference. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Labour Court vide order dated 16.9.1998: .(1) Whether the claimant is not a workman and respondent is not an industry under the I.O. act? .(2) Whether the claimant was foundmedically unfit at the time of regularization, if so, its effect? .(3) As in terms of reference. 5. No issue was framed by the Labour Court with regard to its jurisdiction, which apparently shows that the petitioner was never serious in challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Moreover by not pressing the aforesaid issue No. 1 the petitioner in fact had conceded to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the issue of lack of jurisdiction of Labour Court. In view of the foregoing discussion I, therefore, do not find that the Labour Court lacked the jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute as referred to it by the Delhi Administration. Coming back to the point of grant of 50% backwages by the Labour Court, I do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the above direction given by the Labour Court. The Labour Court clearly held that the petitioner management had ignored not only SR-4 of Fundamental Rules, but also totally overlooked the fact that the petitioner was found medically fit to perform his duties as per the medical certificate produced by him from senior Medical Officer, Chest Clinic Gulabi Bagh and from Medical Officer of LNJP hospital. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent by the petitioner before passing the order of the termination and, therefore, the said order of termination is illegal on the very face of it. The Labour Court has been fully considerate and conscious of the fact that the respondent workman being a manual worker although might not have been able to secure any regular employment but must not have remained totally idle, therefore, taking this aspect into consideration the petitioner being a public body was not burdened to pay the full back wages to the workman and after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.C.D. v. Prem Chand Gupta : (2000)I LLJ 533 SC granted 50% of the back wages in favour of the respondent workman. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the Labour Court. 6. There is no merit in the present petition, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.