1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2009 Asha M. Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs The Centaur Hotel - Mumbai Airport and Ors .. Respondents Kavita M. Pawar for the petitioner CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 8th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - original complainant. This petition is directed against the order dated 19th October, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No. 549 of 2001. By the said order, the complaint of the petitioner under items 5,6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act came to be dismissed. 2. The husband of the petitioner was working in respondent no.1 hotel. He expired on 4th June, 1995. On 1st July, 1996, the petitioner joined services of respondent no.1 hotel in utility department on compassionate basis. She was initially kept on RMA wp865-09.sxw 2 contract basis. She came to be terminated on 15th May, 2001 on medical grounds, more specifically on account of defect in eye sight. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 did not allow her to complete 240 days in a year and used to give breaks and that the persons who were juniors to her who were working on temporary basis, were made permanent but the petitioner was not made permanent, hence it was the case of the discrimination. Hence, she filed a complaint under items 5,6, 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act which came to be dismissed. 3. As far as item 6 of schedule IV of the said Act is concerned, a complaint is to be filed by the recognized union. However, it is seen that the petitioner has filed a complaint in her individual capacity under item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act. In view of the provisions of the said Act, the Industrial Court has rightly held that the complaint is not maintainable. 4. As far as item 5 of schedule IV of the said Act is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that those persons who were juniors to her and who were working on temporary basis were later on made permanent, however the petitioner was not made permanent. As RMA wp865-09.sxw 3 far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the employment provided to the petitioner by the respondent hotel was in utility department where she was required to do the work of sweeping and cleaning. The petitioner has been declared unfit to work by the medical officers on account of defect in eye sight. In such case, it cannot be said that there was any discrimination on the part of the employer, especially because the petitioner was given an opportunity to compete for the permanent post but unfortunately, the petitioner was not found medically fit. 5. Admittedly, the respondent hotel was a five star hotel and it was necessary to maintain a high degree of hygiene and cleanliness of international standard. As the complainant suffered vision problem in both the eyes, it would certainly affect her performance. Hence, she was rightly held to be unfit for the job that she was holding. Moreover, it is seen that the post held by the petitioner was on temporary basis, therefore she cannot claim to be made permanent though she had worked in the establishment for a long time. The Industrial Court has considered all these aspects and has thereafter, dismissed the complaint. Looking to all these facts, no interference RMA wp865-09.sxw 4 is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp865-09.sxw