WP/1323/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1323 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioner V/s. Sidhanna Shankar Birajdar ... Respondent Mr.G.S. Hegde a/w G.A. Karmalkar for Petitioner Mr.T.R. Yadav for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 31, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.1 of 2004. The complaint has been filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner had employed the respondent as a Driver. He met with an accident on 19.12.1991 and thereafter his services were terminated on the ground that he was declared medically unfit. It appears that the respondent applied for a suitable alternate employment. However, the Corporation declined to consider the application. 3. The Industrial Court has held that the respondent had proved that he had suffered a disability on account of an accident which occurred while he was driving WP/1323/2010 : 2 : the bus owned by the petitioner. The Industrial Court also noted that the workman had been paid compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, in view of the circular issued by the Corporation permitting employment of those drivers who had suffered major accidents resulting in their disablement on alternate jobs, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint. The Corporation has been directed to provide the respondent workman on any other suitable alternate job, keeping in view his disability. 4. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with this order passed by the Industrial Court. 5. The Petition is therefore rejected. 6. The Corporation shall implement the order of the Industrial Court within four weeks from today.