JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in ID.No.293 of 2009 dated 30.05.2016.)

1. This Writ Petition is listed and taken up today through Video Conferencing.

2. The first respondent had joined the services of the Management, as a estate worker in the year 1996. On 23.02.2000, when she was employed in the Tea estate, she had met with an accident owing to which she became unfit for the regular course of employment. On 28.03.2000, the petitioner/management had insisted the first respondent to produce a fitness certificate, for the purpose of allowing her to continue her employment. In the meantime, the first respondent herein had made a claim under the Workman Compensation Act in the year 2000, which came to be finally decided before this Court in an appeal in CMA.No.480 of 2000.

3. Thereafter, it is claimed that the first respondent herein had been consistently requesting the petitioner to permit her to join duty and since, the management had not acceded to her request, she had raised a dispute before the conciliation officer in the year 2008, which ended in failure. Consequently, the Labour Court had adjudicated the petitioner's industrial dispute in ID.No.293 of 2009 and had taken into account of the delay in raising the dispute and accordingly, while ordering for reinstatement, had reduced her backwages by 50%.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner would predominantly stress upon the ground that the first respondent herein had raised the industrial dispute belatedly and therefore, the dispute itself ought to have been rejected on the ground of latches.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, who assisted this Court on behalf of the first respondent, would place reliance on the decisions of this Court and submit that, in the absence of any limitation prescribed for raising an industrial dispute at that relevant point of time and that since, the petitioner is entitled for protection under the provision of the Persons with Disability Act, there is no infirmity in the findings of the Labour Court. It is also his submission that since the Labour Court had already taken into account the delay aspect and proportionately reduced the backwages, no interference is required in the award.

6. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Ajoy Khose, when the first respondent herein, had met with an accident and was rendered unfit to carryout her regular duties, there is duty cast on the management to provide alternate duty under the provisions of the Persons with Disability Act. This Court in the case of The Management of TNSTC Ltd., (Salem Division I) Ramakrishna Road, Salem -7 vs. The Presiding Officer and another (WP.Nos.7483 & 17042 of 2003) dated 22.03.2019 in support of such ratio had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunal Singh V. Union of India and another reported in [2003 (4) SCC 524] and had substantiated such a ratio in the following manner:-

“11. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 clearly holds that there shall not be any discrimination in Government employment to a person, who acquires disability during his service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in the case of Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and another [2003 (4) SCC 524], had held that though Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, provides for medical invalidation and medical invalidation pension, the Rules cannot override the statutory protection given under Section 47(1) r/w. Section 72 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, when the employee has acquired disability through service and that he should be shifted to some other employment with pay protection and benefits. When the ratio laid down therein, stating that the Act will override the CCS Pension Rules, the reliance placed by the respondent Corporation herein on Government Order, which is i