- (1.) LA . No. 1986 of 2007 - - Having heard the counsel for the parties, the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
(2.) I .A. No. 1986/2007 stands disposed of. I.P.A. No. 525 of 2006. The appellant -petitioner claiming him self to be disabled person, filed an application before the Company for appointment of his son by invoking Clause 9.4.0. of the NCWA -VI, which has been rejected on 6.9.2003. Challenging the same the appellant - petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, dismissed the same as he cannot claim employment for the dependent in terms of Clause 9.4.0. of NCWA -VI as there is no loss of employment or service. This is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this L. P.A. We have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that this is the fourth round of litigation. The appellant met with an accident and his left elbow has been amputated in the year 1996 and from then onwards he sought employment for his dependent son in terms of Clause 9.4.0, of NCWA -VI. In spite of several order passed by this Court to consider his case, the company respondents did not consider the same and ultimately rejected his claim vide order dated 6.9.2003 without any valid reason.
(3.) THERE is no dispute in the fact that Clause 9.4.0. of NCWA - VI provides employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. If we go through the entire contents, it is clear that the disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Company concerned. In this case the Committee has been constituted to consider the said aspect and the Committee considered the employee's case and found that the petitioner - appellant performed his duties during the month of May 2002 to October, 2002 and has worked not less than 21 days out of 26 working days each month except in August 2002 when he worked for 19 days. The Committee also noticed that the employee had performed duties on Sundays and also on overtime. He has also earned additional wages for performing the duties on Sundays and overtime. The learned single Judge while referring the Committee's opinion said that there has been no loss of employment and hence the representation for employment to the dependent cannot be accepted. Further it is noticed that the employee (petitioner -appellant) retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2003. We are in 2007. There is no new recruitment. Of course in order to satisfy the requirement of Clause 9.4.0. of NCWA -VI, the Committee has given its opinion that disablement should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and the same should be certified by the Company concerned. But this is a case where the Company Board did not find him unfit for the work on the other hand till the superannuation he worked continuously and also on some occasions, as indicated earlier, he worked overtime and earned additional wages.;