Pramod Ganpatrao Pobare vs Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation, Buldana and another

Prasanna B. Varale, J. - Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola, thereby rejecting the application seeking interim relief of issuance of direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner an alternate employment of light work by reinstating him in the service till disposal of the complaint.

On hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents, the Industrial Court found that disability claim of the petitioner was based on a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Buldhana and grant of interim relief as prayed by the applicant would amount to grant of final relief and accordingly, rejected the application.

Mr. Thakkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner received a certificate from the Civil Surgeon, certifying that the petitioner is suffering from ''seronegative arthropathy *illigible* and patient is unfit for driving and he is advised for light duty or office work", the application ought to have been allowed by the Industrial Court.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents firstly submitted that the petitioner''s interim prayer was in the nature of final relief and the Industrial Court rightly rejected the application. The second submission of the learned counsel is the course adopted by the petitioner seeking the certificate directly from the Civil Surgeon is contrary to the Circulars of the respondent Corporation. The learned counsel fairly submits that the provisions are made under the Disability Act, 1995 so as to achieve the object of providing job opportunities and alternate jobs to the physically disabled persons and the respondent Corporation also, in view of achieving such object, has issued Circulars and settled a particular procedure. The learned counsel invited my attention to the Circulars issued by the respondent Corporation prescribing the procedure for medical examination of an employee suffering from disability. The said Circular dated 14.03.1996 deals with the procedure and Circular dated 10.09.2008, by referring to the provisions of the persons suffering with the Disability Act, 1995, refers to the directions issued by the Corporation and refers to the settlement/agreement between the respondent � Corporation and its employees for the years 1996�2000 and 2004�2008.

Perusal of the Circular, dated 14.03.1996 shows that it was a practise followed by the employees to approach the Civil Surgeon directly and receive the certificate from the Civil Surgeon. The Circular, with an intention to have an effective remedial measure, directed that all the employees, in stead of approaching the Civil Surgeon directly, firstly, should approach the Honorary Medical Officer approved by the Corporation in case of any ailment. If the Medical Officer is of the opinion of referring the employee to the Civil Surgeon, he may accordingly opine and on such an opinion, the employee shall approach the Civil Surgeon through the Head of the Department or Division. The Circular further states that the concerned officer of the Department or Division shall also request the Civil Surgeon not to entertain the requests of the employees directly and the Civil Surgeon may give opinion on the communication issued by the office.

Thus, the procedure is spelt out way back in the year 1996. Perusal of the material placed on record shows that though the Divisional Controller forwarded a communication to the Depot Manager informing him that the petitioner be sent to the honorary medical officer, there is no communication placed on record at the instance of the petitioner to show that the petitioner then approached the honorary medical officer. The material placed on record shows that the petitioner has directly approached the Orthopedic Department of the Civil Hospital, Buldana and the Orthopedic Surgeon referred the petitioner to the Civil Surgeon. Though, it was an attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that the petitioner had followed the procedure, on a specific query put to the petitioner whether the Orthopedic Surgeon attached to the Civil Hospital is an honorary medical officer of the Corporation, as referred to in the Circular of 1996 issued by the Corporation, the learned counsel submitted that he do not possess any of such material.

Considering all these aspects in my opinion, the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court finds no fault and the petition deserves to be dismissed. If the petitioner is ready to undertake the exercise as spelt out in the Circulars, issued by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner is at liberty to undertake such an exercise and then approach the Industrial Court, if so advised. If the petitioner approaches the respondent Corporation with such application, the respondent Corporation may decide the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.