K.KARUPPASAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned award dated 29.03.10 passed in I.D.No.111/2004, in so far as directing the 2nd respondent to provide employment to the petitioner only as a fresh entrant after settling the account of his earlier service and declining him reinstatement in suitable alternative employment with continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate him in service in suitable alternative employment as per Sec. 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages from 13.11.2003.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would aver among other things that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent driver in the 2nd respondent corporation on 28.12.87. He was also given promotion as Senior Grade driver after 6 years of service as driver. He rendered more than 15 years of unblemished service. While he was working at Vilathikulam branch of the 2nd respondent corporation, he was sent for eye test to Aravind Eye Hospital at Tirunelveli to find out his eye fitness to continue to work as driver. The said hospital after examining the petitioner, alleged to have sent a report dated 30.09.2002 to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner was suffering from colour blindness. The Chief Medical Officer of the hospital also alleged to have given his report dated 02.09.2002 that the petitioner was unfit to work as driver. Based on the same, the 2nd respondent referred the petitioner to the Regional Medical Board, Tirunelveli. The Medical Board, after examining the petitioner sent a report dated 30.09.2002 to the 2nd respondent, stating that the petitioner is unfit to work as driver due to defective colour vision suffered by him. Based on the said report of the Medical Board, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.10.2002, asking the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from service. The petitioner disputed the report of the Medical Board and requested the 2nd respondent to again refer him to the Medical Board. Accepting the said request, the petitioner was again referred to the Medical Board and was once gain subjected to eye test and the Medial Board sent a report dated 27.08.2003 confirming its earlier report dated 30.09.2002. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 13.11.20003 discharging the petitioner from service on the reason that he was suffering from colour blindness.

(3.) It is further submitted that despite the requests of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent did not come forward to provide him suitable alternative employment and therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement before the Labour Officer, Tirunelveli. The 2nd respondent participated in the conciliation proceedings, but failed to provide him alternative employment and that the dispute ended in failure. Based on the failure report dated 04.06.2004 of the Labour Officer, the petitioner filed a case in I.D.No.111/2004 before the 1st respondent. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as witness and marked 4 documents on his side. On the side of 2nd respondent, one witness was examined and 21 documents were marked. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the 1st respondent passed the impugned award holding that the petitioner was having defective colour vision and that he was entitled to get only re-employment as fresh entrant as per the settlement dated 28.09.1995 after settling account of his earlier service and directing the 2nd respondent to provide him re-employment as fresh entrant. Aggrieved by the said award of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award on the following grounds:-