KUPPANNA NAIK Vs. NEKRTC THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award made by the Labour Court dismissing the Reference is called in question in this writ petition by the Legal Representatives of the deceased ex-employee of the respondent-Corporation. The records reveal that the Kuppanna Naik was the Driver-cum-Conductor working at Sindhanur Depot, Raichur District; due to acquiring of disability, he submitted an application praying for permission to retire voluntarily on 14.3.2007, along with the medical certificate dated 12.3.2007; the said application was accepted on 11.5.2007; from that day onwards, Kuppanna was not the employee of the respondent-Corporation; thereafter, terminal benefits are provided to the first petitioner, who accepted the same; the workman died on 15.2.2011; during his life time, he raised the dispute in Reference No. 42/2009 for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2007; the contention of the workman was that under the garb of acceptance of resignation letter dated 14.3.2007, he was terminated on 11.5.2007 without providing him an alternative employment. The said reference came to be rejected by the impugned award. The Legal Representatives of the deceased workman have filed this writ petition questioning the rejection of the Reference.

(2.) Sri Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was the duty of the respondent-Corporation to explain the workman about the correct legal position and advise him about his legal rights; the workman was not aware of the protection under Law afforded to him; he believed that his blindness would cause him to lose his job and source of livelihood of his family; since he did not know about his legal rights provided to him under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, ('Disabilities Act' for short) the respondent-Corporation has terminated the workman under the garb of accepting the application for voluntary retirement.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by Sri Shivashankar Manur, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation by contending that application is given voluntarily by the workman to retire and the same is accepted by the respondent-Corporation as per law; all the terminal benefits are provided to the workman after his voluntary retirement and therefore it is not open for the claimants to contend that the workman should have been reinstated to duties in an alternative job suitable to his physical condition.