(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11042 OF 2010 Bhaskar Chandrabhan Jadhav, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. H.No. D-2, 4/5, Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Karmachari Vasahat, At Post : Ranjangaon, Taluka : Rahta, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., At Ganeshnagar, Post : Ranjangaon (Kh.), Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Managing Director. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, who has suffered heart attack, wanted light work to be given to him. He relied upon provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (For short, "1995 Act"), for the said purpose and claimed declaration that the respondent has indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, "1971 Act"). He also gave some instances to urge that in the past, light work was made available to other similarly situated persons and claimed that unfair labour practice falling under Item 5 of Schedule IV of 1971 Act has been committed by the respondent. The Industrial Court has rejected the contention under Item 9, after noticing that establishment of respondent is private establishment to which above mentioned 1995 Act did not apply. It further found that case of discrimination was not made out. (3) 3. With the assistance of both learned Counsel, I have perused the relevant papers and definition of "establishment" as given in 1995 Act. The cross examination conducted is only to bring on record, control which Government can exercise because of the measures contained in Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Those measures are to be resorted to only in case of emergency or other similar difficulties. There is no cross examination to show that establishment has received any Government aid. I am, therefore, satisfied that finding of Industrial Court about non-applicability of provisions of 1995 Act does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. In so far unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV is concerned, it was essential for the petitioner to demonstrate with details, the situation in which such alternate job was made available to others. Those details are not on record. On the contrary, it appears that during spot visit, concerned employees were found doing the original work and not the alleged light work. Only one of them who has suffered disability on account of paralysis has been given other work. But then terms and conditions on which other work is made available to him is not brought on record. (4) 5. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11042