DECISION This appeal is directed against the order of Labour Court No: VI, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of Samiullah worker under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that Samiullah was working as helper in the Modern Textile Mills, Tandojam since the year 1968. His services were first terminated on 1-12-1985 but he filed his grievance petition in the Labour Court and he was reinstated on 15-4-1987. In the year 1991 all sections of the mill were transferred to a contractor under labour contract. The appellant therefore terminated the services of all the workers including the respondent. The respondent took the plea that he was a disabled person and his services could not be terminated. He filed grievance petition before the Labour Court: The learned Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent was in violation of section 10 Ordinance No. XL of Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981. Under this Ordinance section 2(c) a person who on account of congenital deformity as handicapped can be called a disabled person. The present respondent is a hunch back and does fall under the definition of disabled person. An establishment employing more than 100 persons shall employ not less than 1% of the total number of disabled persons who shall be entitled to same terms and conditions as those of the other persons employed. In case a disabled person is not employed, the establishment has to pay the salary in the disabled person to Rehabilitation Fund.
3. Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, Advocate for the appellant Textile Mills has argued that the factory was running under 'loss. It was therefore given on labour contract to be run by a contractor. The respondent could have approached the contractor for employment. That in any case the worker cannot insist or claim to be retained under the said Ordinance as under section 10(2) of the Ordinance the disabled person employed against any post in pursuance of subsection (1) shall be entitled to the terms and conditions which are not less favourable than those of the other persons employed by the establishment against similar posts. The learned Advocate contends that all the workers have been discharged under permission of the Labour Court and the respondent has been treated in the same manner as rest of the workers. The learned Advocate further says that he has already employed the respondent under orders of the Labour Court and is prepared to continue to pay him the usual wages even if there is no work which can be assigned to him provided he foregoes the payment of back benefits amounting to Rs.59,419 deposited' by him. The respondent declines to forego the amount of back benefits and is under the impression that having been once employed he cannot be dislodged from his post in the Textile Mills whether the Mills are working or have been closed down. The position as stated by the appellant and his Advocate at present is that even the contractor has abandoned the contract and has left the Mills premises and the Mills are closed down. Under the circumstances the services of the respondent worker even though disabled could be terminated or laid of and in this case the services of the respondent were terminated by an order in writing dated 3rd June, 1991 giving reasons as required under S.O. 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The termination is therefore legal and valid and cannot be called in question by virtue of any provision in the Disabled Persons Ordinance, 1981.
4. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed. The amount of back benefits deposited may be refunded to the appellant after thirty days.