TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PULP Act ) by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to pay wages to respondent no.1 for the period 2nd August 2002 till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, further imposing costs of ₹ 2000/- on the petitioner. 4. The relevant facts are as follows:- Respondent no.1 was working as driver in the employment of the petitioner from 1979. During the course of the employment, respondent no.1 was referred to Medical Officer for visual acuity test and the Medical Officer declared unfit to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the petitioner issued the order dated 8th February 2002 terminating the services of respondent no.1 with effect from 15th January 2002 with retrospective effect. It was the case of respondent no.1 that the petitioner did not offer him alternate job in spite of the specific stipulation to the effect in the settlement between the petitioner and the employees. Respondent no.1 had submitted an application requesting for appointment of his son- Respondent no.2 on compassionate ground. The petitioner had asked respondent to get the medical certificate from the Medical Board, Nagpur to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the back wages are granted and the impugned order to that effect is contrary to the principle no work no wages and, therefore, unsustainable in law. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2013 (1) ALL MR 290 (Prakash Vinayak Naik Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation) and has submitted that the conclusions of the Industrial Court on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 are misconceived. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the facts in the above referred judgment are identical to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed. 8. Mr. Jagdale, learned Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner has not only acted contrary to clause 46 of the Settlement between the petitioner and the employees but also has violated the mandate of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court specially in exercise of extraordinary wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 17 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the matter in the case of Union of India anr. Vs. National Federation of the Blind Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013 and has observed as follows:- 49. Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions in paragraph 54 of the judgment as follows:- 54. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions : (i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat is also required to consider the issues relating to the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 in Writ Petition No.3294/2010 (Mrs.Nilima Ananat Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Public Interest Litigation No 70 of 2002 (ILS Legal and Centre and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Public Interest Litigation No.139 of 2006 and in paragraph 11 of the order, it recorded as follows:- 11. The Health Department of State of Maharashtra shall issue instructions to all the Medical Boards and Superintendents of the Public Hospitals that when a candidate, selected for a post which is reserved for a physically challenged person, appears for medical examination, he cannot be declared unfit or unsuitable for the post by the concerned Medical Board or Superintendent of the Public Hospital on the ground that he is medically unfit because of that particular disability. 15. Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995 reads as under:- Section 47. Non-discrimination in Government employments - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Disabilities Act, 1995. 18. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has dealt with the factual aspects and rightly recorded finding in favour of respondent no.1. 19. The petitioner has submitted that respondent no.1 had accepted the termination order and sought compassionate appointment of his son and it is only when the petitioner did not give compassionate appointment to his son that the respondent no.1 has made complaint and, therefore, the complaint should not have been entertained by the Industrial Court, is misconceived. The petitioner-employer could not have wriggled out of the mandate of the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and could not have shirked its liabilities to provide an alternate employment to respondent no.1 and, therefore, in my view, the findings of the Industrial Court are in accordance with the mandate of the provisions of Section 47 (1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. 20. Reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment given in the case of Prakash Vinayak Naik Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is also not proper. In that case, the employee was terminated and the employee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
