Current Style: Standard

Current Size: 100%

Gujarat High Court

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 12:45 -- admin

Court judgements: Gujarat High Court

Transport Manager and Anr. Vs. Maheshwarsinh Karansinh Jadhav

Special Civil Application No. 20092 of 2006

Decided On: 21.09.2006

Judge: H.K. Rathod, J.

Natwarlal Bhalabhai Vegada Son of Bhalabhai Kala Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr.

Decided on: 11.08.2006

Special Civil Application No. 2455 of 2006

Judges: B.J. Shethna and M.D. Shah, JJ.

The petitioner is a totally blind man. His father, who was a former Railway employee, passed away in 2003. The petitioner, who was dependent on his father, does not have any source of income. He appealed to the respondents for family pension on the above mentioned grounds. However, the respondents alleged that the petitioner could fend for his own since he[the petitioner] had passed 8th standard, and was capable of working on his own. The petitioner was aggreived, and filed this petition.

Click here for full judgement`

Mafatlal S. Patel Vs. Blindmen's Association

Civil Application - For Direction No. 6849 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 1610 of 2001

Decided On: 30.06.2006

Judge: H.K. Rathod, J.

The petitioner, who won the case in Special Civil Application No. 1610 of 2001, was not payed what he was entitled to by the respondent.

Click here for full judgement

Hasankhan Gulamhussainkhan Khanjada Vs. State of Gujarat

Special Civil Application No. 12076 of 2004

Decided On: 17.01.2005

Judge: K.M. Mehta, J.

When the petitioner was applying for the P.T.C. course, his 30% visual disability was not accounted for by the respondent.

Click here for full judgement

K.J. Dhulia Vs. State of Gujarat

Special Civil Application No. 12488 of 2000

Decided On: 18.03.2004

Judge: Akshay H. Mehta, J.

The petitioner, who worked for the respondent as a medical officer, started suffering from deteriorating eyesight. He was found unfit for his post, and the respondent tried to find him another post. When he was further examined by a medical board, it found him unot not only visually, but also in other ways. He ws then given the notice of retirement, against which the petitioner is petitioning.

Click here for full judgement


Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopal Motambhaia Patel

(2003) XXIII 3 Gujarat Law Herald 745
Special Civil Application No.2726/2003
Decided on: 10.04.2003
Gujarat High Court
Judge: H.K.Rathod, J

Fact: Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) challenged the decision of the Labour Court to set aside the order of termination of services of driver Gopal Motambhaia who became a paralysed person and also the direction to make arrangements for reinstatement on the post equivalent to the post of driver with light work and with continuity in service, protecting the existing wages and granting 85 per cent of the back wages. GSRTC claimed that the decision of labour court is contrary to the policy laid down by the Corporation. A workman can be considered for an alternative equal post in case of inability occurring in case of accidental injury during the course of service. Besides it was argued that the financial position of the Corporation was weak and Labour Court had not given consideration to this fact.

Held: The termination of the services of the employee who acquired paralysis during his service period was without considering the provisions existing in sec 47of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. [According to the Act, no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires disability during his service. If he is not suitable to the present post means he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Further, if he is not possible to adjust to any of the available posts, he must be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, which ever is earlier]. The Labour Court is not bound by the policy of the corporation. It had the right to consider the settlement issue of the livelihood of workman. The argument of weak financial position of the Corporation cannot be taken into consideration because there are many other ways and means for effecting the economy measures of the Corporation than termination of service of a disabled worker. So the court cannot observe any irregularity in Labour Court decisions. The decisions are just, so called off any interference by the court.

Facebook comments