R. S. DALVI, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is a person with hearing disability who has acquired his disability consequent upon and during his service with Respondent No. 5. The petitioner was a trained Telephone Operator working as such with Respondent No. 5 for 23 years. Respondent no. 5 are in the business of manufacturing industrial equipments and the Petitioner was posted in their factory. He was not provided with a soundproof cabin. The Petitioner contends that he worked under extremely noisy surroundings in the 5th Respondents factory. It is his case that due to constant loud manufacturing sounds his sense of hearing became gradually impaired and he had to undergo medical treatment ultimately leading to the termination of his services by respondent No. 5. His legal rights to employment under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as "the Act") are under consideration in this matter.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner has relied upon the Certificate of his Physician dated 29th October 1994 showing that he suffers from bilateral sensory neural loss. He was advised not to get exposed to noisy surroundings. Thereafter, on 17th March, 1998 he has undergone an audiogram which illustrates the hearing loss in decibels as against the frequency in hertz in respect of both his ears. The Audiologist has shown how the petitioners hearing has been impaired. The right ear shows profound sensory neural loss. The left ear shows severe sensory neural loss. A certificate given by another Physician dated 25th March, 1998 shows around 85% deafness. He was certified handicapped for his day-today activities due to his deafness.

( 3 ) A subsequent Audiogram dated 10th June, 2000 showed further impairment of his left ear. The audiologists report showed no benefit from amplification. It was advised that the Petitioner should not be doing any job which requires use of only auditory modality. It was further advised that Visual auditory Modality may be a better option.

( 4 ) THE Petitioners Advocate has explained the two Audiograms of 1998 and 2000. The Amplification showing the frequency in hertz is seen to have been almost complete in the right ear since 1998 itself showing "profound" hearing loss. "severe" hearing loss in the Petitioners left ear in 1998 has deteriorated to "profound" hearing loss in his left ear in the year 2000. The later Audiogram therefore, shows both his ears almost completely damaged. The two audiograms further show that this damage has taken place over the years and whilst the Petitioner served in the factory of Respondent No. 5.

( 5 ) THE Certificate dated 11th June 2000, exhibit-E to the Petition shows that the Petitioner suffers from profound sensory hearing loss which is seen to be progressive. It shows that it would be better for the Petitioner to be occupied in work which entails not merely auditory, but visual and auditory requirements. Thus, the Petitioner can be employed to do any work which entails not merely hearing, but hearing as well as seeing requirements.

( 6 ) THE Petitioner therefore, wrote to Respondent no. 5 - his employer on 26th June, 2000 entreating them to transfer him to another section. Instead, respondent No. 5 by their letter dated 1st December 2000 terminated the services of the Petitioner as he was unfit to perform his duties as Telephone Operator without any chance of recovery of the deformity. The termination was notified to be with effect from 31st december 2000.

( 7 ) THE Petitioner applied to the Disability commissioner appointed under the Provisions of the Act for being provided a suitable alternate posting as a handicapped person.

( 8 ) THE Commissioner by his order dated 12th october 2001, Exhibit-N to the Petition rejected the petitioners claim seeking such a transfer and to be given another posting on the ground that Respondent no. 5-employer was not covered under the Act. He h