1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6641 OF 2007 Lloyds Steel Industries Limited ...... Petitioner. V/s Shri Bapu Dasharath Galve and anr. ...... Respondents. ------ Mr. R.S. Pai with Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.J. Chougule for Respondent No.1. ---- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 8th January, 2008 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, challenges the order passed under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights & Full Participation) 2 Act, 1995. The Respondent No.1 who was in the service of the Petitioner filed a complaint under the aforesaid Act before Respondent No.2, making grievance about his transfer. The Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.2 and claimed that the Respondent No.2 does not have jurisdiction to make any order because the Petitioner is not an establishment within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent No.2 held that he has the jurisdiction to make the order, relying on the judgment of this Court in Satish Prabhakar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 I CLR 455 and issued direction to the Petitioner - Company. The Petitioner - Company has challenged that order. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Fancy Rehabilitation Trust and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 264 and submitted that as the Petitioner is not an establishment within the meaning of the aforesaid Act, the provisions of the Act do not apply to the Petitioner - Company. Perusal of the definition of the term “Establishment” appearing in section 2(k) of that Act shows that only a Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company can be an establishment. It is nobody’s case that the Petitioner is a Government owned Company. It is also not controlled by the State or Central Government. Therefore, in view of the 3 judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Fancy Rehabilitation Trust (supra), the provisions of the Act will not be applicable. The order impugned in the Petition is patently without jurisdiction. 4. In the result, therefore, the Petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4