JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the legality and propriety of the award dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.6 of 2005 under Annexure-4 and further prays for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and all other consequential service benefits. 2. The petitioner asserts that as an Ex-serviceman, he joined under the organization of opposite party nos.1 and 2 (TISCO) on 15.06.1985 as a Driver-cum-Havildar at Joda Division. While on duty on 29/30.07.1998 some miscreants attacked him within the leasehold area of the employer causing injuries on his person. F.I.R. in respect of the occurrence was lodged at Joda Police Station and petitioner was admitted in TISCO Hospital, Joda on 30.07.1998 and was discharged from hospital on 01.08.2998 with medical advice for taking three days rest. While on leave unfortunately on 03.08.1998 the petitioner fell down in bath room and sustained fracture on his left arm and was again admitted in TISCO Hospital where the doctor declared him unfit for six weeks from 04.08.1998 and referred to TISCO Hospital, Jamshedpur where the petitioner was treated from 04.08.1998 to 21.08.1998 for his fracture injury. The petitioner on 15.08.1998 made a complaint before the Managing Director of the Hospital that some outsiders, who were related to some doctors of the said hospital, were forcibly taking away food prepared for the patients. Since the complaint of the petitioner was detrimental to the interest of the doctors, he was referred to the Psychiatrist. The Psychiatrist declared him unfit for mental problem due to mala fide and ulterior motive though the petitioner was in normal state of mind. The petitioner was then referred to TATA Main Hospital (TMH), Jamshedpur where he was admitted on 14.09.1998. On 17.09.1998 the company Medical Board declared the petitioner unfit for a period of six months on Psychiatric grounds. After six months, the petitioner was again examined by the Medical Board at Jamshedpur Hospital and was declared unfit for a further period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the opposite parties to allow him to resume his duty but he was not allowed. As a result, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute. After six months, the petitioner was again examined by the Medical Board at Jamshedpur Hospital and was declared unfit for a further period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the opposite parties to allow him to resume his duty but he was not allowed. As a result, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute. An attempt for conciliation of the dispute having failed for non-co-operation of the management, the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government made a reference to the learned Tribunal which was registered as I.D. Case No.81 of 2001. The reference in the said I.D. Case was only with respect to the demand of the petitioner for payment of salary/wages for the period of injury on working (IOW) from 04.08.1998 till the date of his so called retirement. The petitioner having found that a wrong reference had been made, filed a representation before the appropriate Government to make necessary correction in the schedule of the reference. While such representation was pending the Tribunal answered the reference in I.D. Case No.81 of 2001 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.7240 of 2003 before this Court challenging the award passed in I.D. No.81 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission by order dated 09.07.2004 with a direction to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In compliance to such order of this Court, the Central Government made the present reference, which is to the following effect : “Whether the action of the Management of Joda Iron Mines of TISCO Ltd., Joda in terminating the services of Shri Bhubaneswar Thakur, Driver-cum-Havildar on Medical Separation Scheme with effect from 02.11.1999 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” On the basis of the above reference the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar registered I.D. Case No.6 of 2005 and by award dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure-4) the Tribunal came to hold that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement under the Medical Separation Scheme which does not amount to any retrenchment, dismissal, or discharge and that raising of the dispute after severance of employer and employee relationship makes the reference non-maintainable and accordingly the Tribunal granted no relief. This order of the Tribunal has been impugned in this writ petition. This order of the Tribunal has been impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner has further stated that he had not applied for voluntary retirement under the medical separation scheme but during his treatment his signatures were obtained on some papers which were subsequently utilized by the Management for giving voluntary retirement to him under the scheme. It is also stated that he himself got examined by the doctors of Ranchi Hospital and SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, who have reported that he was fit to discharge his normal duty. 3. The opposite party-employer has filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that during the treatment of the petitioner at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur after taking admission on 14.09.1998, he developed some mental disorder. On 16.09.1998 the petitioner was discharged with an advice to appear before the Special Medical Board. On 17.09.1998 the Special Medical Board on examination declared him unfit for six months. Thereafter again he appeared before the Special Medical Board on 04.03.1999 and was declared unfit for a further period of six months and while the matter stood thus on 15.09.1999, the petitioner submitted application before the Management with a request to accept his voluntary retirement under Medical Separation Scheme. On 02.11.1999, the petitioner’s application was accepted and on 17.11.1999, 20.11.1999 & 24.11.1999, the petitioner received all his retirement benefits from the company under the Medical Separation Scheme. At the time of settlement of his dues after acceptance of his application, one conciliation proceeding was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela. The petitioner submitted an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela with a request to drop the said conciliation proceeding, as he had voluntarily retired from service and copy thereof forwarded to the company has been filed as Annexure-C/1. It is stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela did not drop the proceeding and sent failure report to the Government of India with mala fide intention and the Government of India made a reference giving rise to registration of I.D. Case No.81 of 2001. After the award was passed in the said I.D.Case, the company paid the dues of injury on work from 30.07.1998 to 06.11.1999 to the petitioner. After receipt of those dues the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7240 of 2003, which was disposed of as aforesaid. After the award was passed in the said I.D.Case, the company paid the dues of injury on work from 30.07.1998 to 06.11.1999 to the petitioner. After receipt of those dues the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7240 of 2003, which was disposed of as aforesaid. The claim of the petitioner that he was not medically unfit to resume duty and that for malafide and ulterior motive he was declared medically unfit has been denied. It is also denied that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the Management and they were subsequently used against him for giving him voluntary retirement in accordance with the Medical Separation Scheme. It is stated that the petitioner does not deny that he has received all his retirement dues pursuant to acceptance of his retirement application and, therefore, the allegation/assertion that he has not filed application for voluntary retirement is not correct. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit refuting the assertions made in the counter and has further stated that the documents annexed with the counter affidavit of the Management were not submitted by the petitioner with his free consent. Since the petitioner’s signatures had been obtained on blank papers, they were subsequently utilized by the Management with mala fide intention. 5. In assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no proof that the petitioner was medically unfit and that no certificate of unfitness of the petitioner at the time of consideration of his so called voluntary retirement application was produced before the Tribunal for its satisfaction. It is also submitted that clause-4 of the Medical Separation Scheme (Annexure-8) provides the procedure for dealing with requests for Separation under the scheme and as per that procedure, after the application in prescribed format for medical separation was received, the medical Board headed by the Chief Medical Officer and two other Specialists is required to examine the case and make recommendation to the GM(OM&Q) and based on such recommendation of the Medical Board the approval for settlement under the scheme would be issued. It is submitted that after the submission of the so called application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under the Medical Separation Scheme no Medical Board has examined him and certified unfitness and recommended for his retirement and no such evidence was available before the Tribunal and without adverting to this question, the Tribunal has simply observed that the petitioner applied under the scheme and his application was accepted and he has received all his dues thereunder. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner having applied for voluntary retirement under the Medical Separation Scheme on his own volition and the same having been accepted and he having received all his retirement dues long back, he cannot now fall back and say that his application was wrongly accepted in contravention of the scheme. It is also his submission that the plea of the petitioner that he signed on so many blank papers and they were utilized by way of fabrication of so many documents do not stand to reason and hence cannot be accepted. 6. The Tribunal framed issue no.2 as follows : “2. Whether the workman has taken voluntary retirement under the Medical Separation Scheme and whether the same amounts to termination within the definition of the term?” While considering the aforesaid issue the Tribunal made a reference to the benefits available under the scheme and taking the different documents bearing petitioner’s signature including his application and receipt of the retiral benefit into account it has held that his conduct suggests that he opted for the benefit under the scheme and received the same and, therefore his belated plea cannot be accepted and accordingly decided the issue against him. 7. There are large number of documents including the application of the petitioner for retirement under the Medical Separation Scheme available on record, which bear the signatures of the petitioner. The petitioner has never disputed the genuineness of his signatures on those documents. He is not an illiterate or ignorant person. He is an ex-serviceman. It cannot be believed for a moment that he signed on a large number of blank papers and handed over the same to the management and also received retirement dues. Therefore, his plea that he did not apply for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted. 8. He is not an illiterate or ignorant person. He is an ex-serviceman. It cannot be believed for a moment that he signed on a large number of blank papers and handed over the same to the management and also received retirement dues. Therefore, his plea that he did not apply for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted. 8. The petitioner has filed the Medical Separation Scheme of the TISCO vide Annexure-8 which has not been disputed by the opposite parties. Clause-4 of the scheme provides for the procedure which may be adopted in dealing with the request for separation under the scheme. The said clause-4 is extracted hereunder : “4. The following procedure may be adopted in dealing with requests for separation under the scheme. (i) An employee wishing to avail of medical separation under the scheme should apply in prescribed format to the GM (OM&Q) through his Departmental Head. The application after due scrutiny by the Personnel Department will be sent to Chief Medical Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of the application. (ii) A Board headed by Chief Medical Officer and two other Specialists will meet as often as necessary to examine such cases. The Board will send its recommendation to the GM(OM&Q) within 15 days of the receipt of the application from an employee wishing to avail of medical separation under the scheme. (iii) Based on the recommendation of the Medical Board the approval for settlement under the scheme will be issued by GM (OM&Q) to DM (A/cs) for final settlement.” 9. The words “may be adopted” appearing in the aforesaid clause does not mean that the management has a choice to get an applicant examined by the medical board. The procedure appears to be mandatory in nature which has to be gone into or followed in deciding a case whether the applicant concerned is medically unfit to discharge the duties of his office. Even where an employee has been declared unfit for some period by the medical board, in case he makes an application for separation under the scheme, his application is to be processed in the manner stipulated in sub-clauses-(i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause-4 of the scheme. The basis of acceptance or non-acceptance of the application is the recommendation of the medical board. The basis of acceptance or non-acceptance of the application is the recommendation of the medical board. Therefore, without any recommendation by the Medical Board after examination about the medical unfitness of the employee, the application cannot be accepted on the basis of any declaration about medical unfitness for a temporary period made prior to the submission of the application by the employee. 10. In the instant case undisputedly the petitioner was twice declared medically unfit for a period of six months by the medical board, the last declaration being on 02.09.1999. The petitioner only made the application on 15.09.1999. Since there is no declaration of permanent unfitness on 02.09.1999 it was incumbent on the part of the employer to refer the petitioner for his examination by the medical board, in as much as it was possible that the petitioner could have become medically fit. While the petitioner asserts that he was never examined by the medical board after submission of his application dated 15.09.1999 and there was no recommendation of the medical board about his unfitness or for accepting his application, the opposite parties have remained silent in their counter affidavit on this score. In the premises it must be held that the acceptance of petitioner’s application under the medical separation scheme is contrary to the procedure prescribed in the scheme and therefore, illegal and unjustified. 11. The above aspect having not been considered by the Tribunal, the award of the Tribunal is indefensible. Accordingly, it is held that the acceptance of the petitioner’s application under the scheme amounts to illegal retrenchment. It is, therefore, directed that in case the petitioner has not reached age of superannuation, he shall be reinstated in service with 25% back wages and his past service from the date of voluntary retirement shall be taken into account for the purpose of retiral benefits. The retirement dues, which the petitioner had already received pursuant to acceptance of his application under the Medical Separation Scheme shall be adjusted towards back wages. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of.