The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory duty of the employer to provide alternate employment to an employee who has suffered a disability during the course of employment, irrespective of any compensation received under other acts, and the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

By consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.32 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent/Labour Court, Trichy, declining the relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

.(a) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the second respondent Transport Corporation in the year 1981 and at that time the second respondent Corporation was called Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. After bifurcation of the Corporation, petitioner opted to serve in the then Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation, Trichy.

.(b) On 4. 1992, when the petitioner was on his way to attend to his duty, travelled in a Transport Corporation Bus from his native place Nedungoor to DCTC Depot, Tiruchirapalli, Mofussil-III. The said bus met with an accident in a head on collision with a on-coming lorry, pursuant to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his right shoulder and his right hand was amputated above the forearm joint.

(c) According to the petitioner, while undergoing treatment, petitioner applied for medical leave, which was not considered by the second respondent Corporation and he reported for duty after his treatment and he was asked to appear before the Regional Medical Board of the Second respondent Corporation at Trichy. The Medical Board certified that the petitioner is not fit for public service as Conductor as he has artificial limbs on his right hand.

.(d) According to the petitioner, he is physically fit to continue in service as Helper. Petitioner requested the second respondent to give some other duty such as Helper based on the recommendations of the Medical Board.

.(e) However, the second respondent issued a charge memo on 23. 1994 stating that as per the recommendations of the Medical Board, petitioner is not fit to continue in service as Conductor and the same is a misconduct as per the standing order No.23(7). Petitioner submitted his reply stating that the amputation was made due to the accident while travelling to report for duty. A second show cause notice was issued, for which also the petitioner submitted his reply. However, the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 17. 1994 by giving one month pay. The reason stated is that the petitioner applied before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation and having made such a claim for compensation, he is not entitled for getting alternate employment.

.(f) The said issue was raised as Labour Dispute and the conciliation efforts having failed and a report to that effect having been filed on 212. 1998, petitioner approached the Labour Court raising I.D.No.32 of 1999, which was dismissed on 29. 2003, as against which this writ petition is filed.

.(g) The main ground of attack raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner having met with an accident and his right hand amputated above the forearm joint, treating the same as misconduct and terminating the petitioners service is erroneous and it is a cruel act. As per the Medical Board recommendation, petitioner ought to have been given alternate employment. Petitioners claim/receipt of compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be treated as double benefit and refusal to give alternate employment on the ground of awarding of compensation ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is unsustainable and the Labour Court failed to appreciate the human right aspect involved in the case, particularly violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India while dismissing the claim petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having sustained injury while travelling in the second respondent Transport Corporation bus for reporting to duty and the Medical Board having certified that the petitioner is not fit to cont