TRANSPORT MANAGER Vs. MAHESHWARSINH KARANSINH JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mehta, for Nanavati & Nanavati on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) According to petitioners, the respondent was working as a daily wager with the petitioners from 1-7-1995 and his service was regularized w.e.f. 1-7-2000 in the post of driver in the Traffic Department. On 30-4-2005, when respondent visited his residence, he met with an accident and lost his 100% eye-sight. Due to this, respondent has not reported for duty or not produced any fitness certificate upto 30-4-2006. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1995"). The petitioners filed reply before the Commissioner on 28-3-2006. The Commissioner, after hearing both the sides, passed an order on 23-5-2006 in Case No. 202 of 2006, wherein, the Commissioner directed to the petitioners under Sec. 47 of the Act of 1995 to pay the respondent full back wages of interim period and further directed to the petitioners to give proper work during the day time considering the disability of the respondent.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Merita, has relied upon ground (d) of the petition and raised the contention that petitioner is declared as essential transport service for the city of Ahmedabad. There are different departments in the petitioner transport service such as Traffic Department, Workshop etc. It is the first and fundamental requirement of every employee that he is completely physically fit for duties in different departments of the petitioner transport service. The respondent herein was serving as Driver with the petitioner-Transport Service. It is impossible for the petitioner to appoint the respondent on the same post and it is also not possible for the petitioner to provide any light duty since the respondent herein has lost eye-sight totally and has become totally blind. If the petitioner provides any light duty to the respondent and since the respondent met with accident and has become totally blind and if he receives any further injury due to blindness, the petitioner is liable to pay compensation to the respondent under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and in the case of the respondent herein, there are all possibilities to give rise to the litigation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is not possible for the petitioner transport service to provide any light duty to the respondent. Therefore, this order is bad. Except that, no other submission is made by learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta.