K RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY mutual consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner has come forward with the above petition seeking for the relief of quashing the portion of the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.13/2003 dated 24.02.2006 published in the Government Gazette dated 27.06.2006, Pondichery directing the reinstatement of the petitioner treating him as fresh entrant and consequently set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2006 fixing the scale of Rs.4,270-60-5710 and direct the 2nd respondent to fix the salary of the petitioner in appropriate time scale without reduction in emoluments he was drawing and pay the arrears with effect from 01.06.2002 to the petitioner and grant all other attendant benefits as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the 1st respondent-Labour Court. It is contended that in compliance of the award passed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has provided an alternative employment to the petitioner, viz., the post of Helper. It is pointed out that the petitioner also joined duty as a Helper and he was also paid an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,91,368/-. It is further contended that in order to invoke the provision u/s.47 of the Act, the petitioner should have suffered 40% disability. But the petitioner, as per the medical opinion, only suffered 30% disability. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would place reliance on the provision u/s.2[t] of the Act-" Definition to a person with disability" and contended that as per the said provision, it requires 40% of disability as certified by the medical authority to claim benefit u/s.47 of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should not be treated as a fresh entrant.