JAGDEO SUKHDEV HIROLE THROUGH L RS Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORN AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) In the present petition the petitioner ' employee has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No.PGA/65/2010, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority on 9.9.2010.

(3.) In support of the writ petition, Advocate Shri Khan argued that the petitioner had claimed supplementary gratuity in terms of the Regulation No. 11 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Gratuity Fund) Regulations as amended, which provides for supplementary amount of gratuity in case of permanent disability, which had occurred in case of the petitioner/employee, but the claim has been denied for no reasons and on improper and illegal interpretation of the regulation. There is a further misconception that the petitioner had admitted that he was not entitled to supplementary gratuity, which is not correct. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the employer of the petitioner himself found the petitioner to be unfit on medical ground to perform his duties once for all and thus had incurred permanent disability. The petitioner was entitled to supplementary gratuity as provided in Regulation 11 of the M.S.R.T.C. Regulations. That apart, the petitioner had not been given any alternate employment nor the same was even offered to him as required by Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ' the Act of 1995' ), which provides that the employer has obligation to shift such disabled employee some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits and in case the same is not possible to keep him on a supernumerary post but not to dispense with his services. This provision of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 has been held to be mandatory and the respondent has not tendered any compliance of this provision. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was entitled to supplementary gratuity in terms of Regulation 11 and therefore, relief should be granted to him. He cited the following decisions.