(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9949 OF 2010 Smt. Sultana Ekbal Naikwade, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C. Building, Room No.9, Government Quarter, Government Medical College Compound, Latur. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Research Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Bhagwan V. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Industrial Court has found that none of the documents produced by the petitioner revealed that percentage of disability suffered by him was 40 % or more. It has, therefore, dismissed his ULP Complaint. 3. Mr. B.V. Thombre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has tried to persuade this Court by pointing out that the Government Resolution dated 4th June 2001 produced at Exhibit "R-4", in its Clause 4(a) speaks of even visual problem. According to him, the words "top or lower organ" appearing in Clause 4(a) also include eyes and as eyes are at the top of the body, visual problem can be considered in addition to orthopaedic problem. Apart from this, he has also invited attention to Section 2(h) defining "multiple disability" in National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and (3) because of his persuasion, time was given twice to him to substantiate his contention and to show that total percentage of disability can be worked out to 43 %. 5. Today again, learned Counsel for the petitioner is seeking time. He has urged that his research could only lead him to a decision by Chief Commissioner of Disability which permits such clubbing together. 6. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, has supported the impugned order of Industrial Court. She states that the words "upper or lower organ" in above mentioned Clause 4(a) cannot include eye problem which is dealt with separately in Clause (b). 7. Sufficient time was given to the petitioner to substantiate her contention. The impugned judgment is delivered by the Industrial Court on 23rd August 2010 with specific reason that these two disabilities cannot be clubbed together. Even thereafter this Court has given time twice to the petitioner. On the last occasion, while passing orders, this Court has also made reference to above mentioned Section 2(h) of 1999 Act and granted time to the petitioner to produce alleged circular issued by the Government. (4) 8. The concept of "multiple disability" appears in altogether different enactment and there is no such concept in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The Government Circular produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is not shown to be either incorrect or then insufficient. Clause 4(a) therein deals with orthopaedic problems while Clause (b) specifically deals with visual defects. Clause (c) then deals with problem of vertebral column. The disability contemplated to upper or lower organ / limb by Clause (a) is necessarily orthopaedic disability. The visual problem cannot be treated as an orthopaedic problem. 9. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, on the material as produced, I am not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE bgp/wp9949