Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport vs Shivaji Kondiba Shinde on 20 October, 2010
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
W.P.No.2197.99
Bsb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 1999
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation ... Petitioner
v/s
Shivaji Kondiba Shinde ... Respondent
Mr.G.S.Hegde for the petitioner.
Nobody present for the respondent.
CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.
DATED: 20TH OCTOBER, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT.:
1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the
Labour Court dated 30.6.1997. By this order, the Labour
Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the
respondent in terms of the circular dated 10.9.1995. The
petitioner Corporation was further directed to pay the back
wages to the respondent with continuity of service.
2. The grievance of the respondent workman in his
complaint was that he had been dismissed from service after
W.P.No.2197.99
being found to be medically unfit. The Civil Surgeon,
Solapur, has diagnosed him with colour-blindness and,
therefore, had declared him to be medically unfit to continue
on the post of a driver. This report of the Civil Surgeon was
dated 10.12.1990. The respondent was examined afresh by
the Medical Board and on 24.7.1991 he was declared unfit to
work as a driver by the Board. His services were terminated
on 30.9.1991. Being aggrieved by the action taken by the
Corporation, the respondent filed a complaint under Item
1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (in short, "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act").
That complaint has been allowed. The revision application
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of
the Labour Court has been confirmed.
3. The main contention of the respondent in his complaint
was that, while terminating his services the Corporation had
not implemented its policy which was contained in its
circular dated 10.9.1975. That policy declares that the
Corporation should provide employment to the drivers who
are declared unfit by the competent medical authority named
in the policy, in other departments or posts. Their services
are to be treated as continuous and without affecting the pay
W.P.No.2197.99
drawn by such persons as drivers. The persons are to be
employed in other suitable posts depending on their
qualifications. An option is also given to the medically unfit
driver to have his son or daughter to be recruited either as a
driver or on in any other category suitable for the
qualifications of such persons.
4. Clause 2 of this circular reads as follows:-
"On receipt of this circular, the Unit Heads are
requested to examine all cases to be decided
under this authority of the above directive of the
Corporation and take appropriate action in all
cases pertaining to your division. Since many of
the drivers already discontinued from
Maharashtra S.R.T. Corporation service may not
be readily available special efforts will have to be
made to communicate decision of the Corporation
to enable them to decide which one of the options
they should choose, subject to availability of
vacancies, and other constraints. Careful
selection will have to be made of the persons
falling under Part A(v) above. Hence, the drivers
who are fit to be appointed as Driver-Trainer will
have to be carefully selected and their names
towards to the Dy.G.M.(Training) who will finally
decide selected such drivers. The drivers who
are above 55 years or who have been found
medically unfit for colour blindness or night
blindness are not to be considered for
employment. In all cases, a cooperative accident
free record is a major consideration."
5. Mr.Hegde appearing for the Corporation takes
exception to the judgments of the Labour Court as well as the
Industrial Court and submits that those drivers who are
W.P.No.2197.99
above 55 years of age or who have been found medically unfit
on account of colour blindness or night blindness are not to
be considered for employment. He based his argument on
the aforesaid Clause 2 of the circular.
6. In my opinion, a proper interpretation of Clause 2 of
this circular would be that, those drivers who are fit to be
appointed as driver-trainers, have to be selected subject to
certain criteria being fulfilled. Such drivers who could be
accommodated as driver-trainers, should not be above 55
years of age and should not be colour-blind or suffer from
night-blindness. The submission of Mr.Hegde that a driver
who is colour-blind or suffers from night-blindness is not
entitled to any sort of employment in any other category is
unacceptable since that is not the import of the circular. The
Labour Court, in my opinion, has committed no error by
concluding that the respondent ought to have been
reinstated in the light of the circular dated 10.9.1975. The
petitioner Corporation had failed to follow the policy
contained in this circular in the case of the respondent and
had terminated his services instead with effect from
30.9.1991. In such circumstances the direction of the Labour
Court to grant the respondent back wages is not erroneous.
In any event, the circular provides that such drivers who
W.P.No.2197.99
are found medically unfit, are to be placed in a different
category with continuity of service. Therefore, the order of
the Labour Court which has been confirmed by the Industrial
Court cannot be considered to be erroneous or perverse.
7. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as
to costs.
ig .....
W.P.No.2197.99
