D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
G. R. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director – Respondent
D. Hariparanthaman, J.
The petitioner was a Driver employed by the respondent Corporation. In the year 2012, the petitioner was suffering from ear pain and thereafter lost his hearing capacity. The petitioner was referred to the respondent Corporation's Medical Officer. He referred the petitioner to the Medical Board and the Medical Report revealed that the petitioner suffered 70% hearing loss. Hence, the petitioner requested the respondents for alternative employment, but he was not provided with the same. It is stated that from 06.01.2013, the petitioner was not provided with any job. Now the present writ petition is filed seeking for alternative employment to him by protecting his pay as Driver.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation has produced an order dated 16.01.2015 providing alternative employment as light duty. In view of the same, no order is necessary with regard to the prayer for providing alternative employment.
3. As far as the prayer relating to treat the period from 06.01.2013 till he was provided alternative employment as duty period, is concerned, it is useful to extract Section 47 of the Act, as under:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.