BELLIYAPPA GOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise against the common order dated 10. 9. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in -W. P. No. 41449/ 2003, filed by the appellant in W. A. No. 43/2008, challenging the award dated 25. 1. 2003 passed by the Labour Court, Mangalore, in I. D. Application (LCM) No. 55/1999, dated 25. 1. 2003, wherein, the Labour Court rendered a finding that the injury sustained by the Writ Petitioner was not during the course of employment, but, owing to the assault with a private individual and therefore, physical disability, which incapacitated him to work as a conductor, falls outside the scope of employment, which enabled the respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'management' to pass an order compulsorily retiring him under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation employees' Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1984, and thus, refused to set aside the order passed by the management dated 29. 6. 1999, compulsorily retiring the writ petitioner, who will be hereinafter referred to as the 'workman' from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the workman has preferred W. A. No. 43/2008 and the management has preferred W. A. No. 2164/2007.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 25. 1. 2003 passed by the Labour court, the workman filed W. P. No. 41449/2003, reiterating the submissions made before the Labour Court and placed reliance on Section 47 of The persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the '1995 Act') and contended that the order of the management dated 29. 6. 1999, compulsorily retiring the workman is illegal.

(3.) PER contra, the management resisted the writ petition on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement dated 29. 6. 1999 came to be passed pursuant to the direction dated 11. 8. 1998 passed in W. P. No. 19963/1998, directing the management to constitute a Medical Board and ascertain as to whether any incapacity had been earned by the petitioner-workman while discharging his duties as a Conductor in the Corporation; in case, if it was found that he had sustained such incapacity/disability, while discharging his duties, the management would consider the advisability of charging his cadre/post befitting his physical conditions and alternatively, if it was found that he had not sustained any incapacity or disability in discharging his duties, the management would direct the workman to discharge his duty, for which he was appointed. It was further ordered that keeping in view the disability, if the workman was unable to discharge the duty for which he was appointed, then the provisions as contained in the retirement regulations may be invoked.