LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-370

V ANGAPPAN Vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED

Decided On September 21, 2010
V. ANGAPPAN Appellant
V/S
STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED (DIVISION II) REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein joined the service of the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation in March 1985 as a Driver. Subsequently, the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation has become the State Express Transport Corporation Limited (Division-I), namely the respondents herein. THE petitioner was confirmed as a Driver in the month of December 1985 and he continued in the said capacity till 25.05.1999. In the month of February 1999, the petitioner was directed to undergo an eye test. In pursuant to the same, the petitioner was found medically unfit to act as a Driver.

(2.) THEREAFTER, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.1999 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service, considering his poor eye sight. The petitioner gave a reply on 05.08.1999 requesting the respondents to give him an alternative employment. However, by the order dated 25.08.1999, the petitioner was relieved from service with an observation that the petitioner would be considered for the alternative employment, if the petitioner gives consent for the same as and when the vacancy arises.

(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in KUNAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA [(2003) 4 SCC 524] has held that Section 47 is mandatory and the same cannot be allowed to be frustrated by the petitioner. THE learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS [(2001) 7 SCC 1] and submitted that the respondent Corporation is coming within the purview of Article 12. A further reliance was also made on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [(2004) Writ L.R.398] wherein, after considering the scope of Section 47 it was held that the benefit conferred therein will have to be extended by the employer concerned and a duty is cast to comply with the same.