2013 (11) TMI 1699 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) engaged in unfair labour practice by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1.
2. Whether the termination of respondent no.1's services violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
3. Whether respondent no.2 is entitled to claim the job on compassionate grounds.

Summary:

Issue 1: Unfair Labour Practice
The MSRTC challenged the Industrial Court's order declaring that it engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1. The Industrial Court directed MSRTC to pay wages to respondent no.1 from 2nd August 2002 until superannuation and imposed costs of Rs. 2000/-.

Issue 2: Violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Respondent no.1, a driver since 1979, was declared unfit to drive due to visual acuity issues and was terminated retrospectively from 15th January 2002. The MSRTC did not offer alternate employment despite a settlement stipulation. The Industrial Court found that MSRTC violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which mandates providing alternate employment or maintaining the employee on a supernumerary post until a suitable position is available or until superannuation. The High Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the MSRTC's direct termination of respondent no.1's services was contrary to the Act's provisions.

Issue 3: Claim for Compassionate Appointment
Respondent no.2, the son of respondent no.1, sought employment on compassionate grounds. The Industrial Court concluded that respondent no.2 was not entitled to claim the job in place of his father. The High Court agreed, noting that respondent no.1's acceptance of the termination and subsequent request for his son's appointment did not negate the MSRTC's obligation under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Industrial Court's order. It imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000/- on the MSRTC for disregarding the mandate of Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for the MSRTC to act as a Model Employer.