-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4956 OF 2008 Bharat Manik Pawar .. Petitioner versus Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Solapur .. Respondent. Mrs. Seema Sarnaik for the petitioner. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 17, 2008. P.C. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur dated 30th September, 2006 passed in Revision (ULP) No. 84 of 2005 by which the revisional Court has confirmed the order passed by the second Labour Court, Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 1997. 2. The petitioner instituted the said complaint before the Second Labour Court, Solapur, under the provisions of Section 28 read with items 1 (b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The case of the petitioner in the complaint is that he was in the employment of the respondent Corporation as a bus driver with effect from 1st January, 1989 and at the relevant time he had completed five and half years of service. His services were terminated with effect from 30th October, 1996, and according -2- to the petitioner the respondent Corporation has, therefore, indulged into unfair labour practices. The case of the petitioner is that he was on duty as a bus driver en route Bhiwandi – Hyderabad on 12th July, 1994. During the transit, the bus met with an accident in which the complainant was seriously injured and his right leg knee got amputed. It is the case of the complainant that as per the policy of the Corporation, alternate job is offered to an employee but the said benefit was not given to the complainant and that is how the management has indulged into unfair labour practices as per Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. It was prayed in the complaint that the complainant should be awarded full back wages and continuity of service and also to provide alternate employment with the Corporation. 3. The Labour Court framed various issues below Exhibit U-4 and after recording the evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that because of the medical unfitness for which a certificate was issued by Civil Surgeon, Solapur, the petitioner was not found fit for the services as a bus driver and, therefore, his services were terminated on 30th October, 1996 by removing his name from the muster roll. The Labour Court found that it is a simple discharge order on account of physical unfitness of the workman. The Labour Court has also recorded in paragraph 11 of the order the factual aspect to the effect that the concerned workman has given purshis on 6th August, 2005 and 22nd July, 2005 stating therein that the complainant does not insist the relief of alternate employment in the present case. Considering -3- the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of medical disability in view of the Civil Surgeon's certificate and considering his purshis the Labour Court found that it cannot be said that any unfair labour practice can be said to have been committed by the employer. Of course, the Labour Court has also considered additional aspect of the matter to the effect that the workman was granted Rs. 2,25,000/- by the authority under the Workmens Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal against the said order is also pending before the High Court and that aspect may not be relevant for deciding the claim of the petitioner for getting alternate employment. The award of the Labour Court was also confirmed in revision by the revisional Court. Considering the reasoning of the Courts below, in my view, it cannot be said that the respondent was guilty of indulging into unfair labour practice. The Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record as well as the medical evidence holding that the concerned workman was unfit for the job of a driver and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. No interference is called for with the order of the Labour Court which is confirmed by the revisional Court in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence I do not find any substance in the writ petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. Before parting with the order, it is required to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that for taking alternate employment, a separate complaint was filed before the Industrial Court, -4- Solapur, as the subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of Industrial Court. Against the order dated 20th October, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur, in the said complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2006, the petitioner has filed a separate Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 4987 of 2008. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.