- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12958 WP No. 8367 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8367 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: ANANTHA D S/O LATE S R DEVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A KAPPAGERE ROAD, GORAVINAKALLU, HOSADURGA - 577527. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT AND VIGILANCE) THE CHAIRMAN, THE COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE POST, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12958 WP No. 8367 of 2025 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.KARASA.KEKA.SIBBANDI.C- 6/109/ 1818/2024-25 DATED 06/03/2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SERIAL NO.28); DIRECT THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE LIGHT WORK TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE AWARD PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN ID NO. 22/2014 DATED 30/06/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO IN TERMS OF SECTION 20(4) OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2016 WITH PAY PROTECTION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12958 WP No. 8367 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is selected as a 'Driver' with the respondents (a Transport Corporation) in the year 2004. He has suffered Renal Cell Carsinoma and has undergone Nephrectomy in the year 2010. The petitioner has filed a claim petition in ID No.22/2014 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court'] calling in question the respondents' decision to dismiss him from service on 31.01.2014 on the ground of unauthorized absence. 2. The Labour Court by the Award dated 30.06.2015 has allowed the claim petition setting aside the Order of Dismissal directing the petitioner's reinstatement with certain benefits. The petitioner is thereafter reinstated and assigned light duty. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12958 WP No. 8367 of 2025 the second respondent's Order dated 06.03.2025 to assign him regular work subject to suitability. 3. Sri M C Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent has overlooked the fact that the petitioner is assigned light duty right from the year 2017 because of his physical condition and the Certification issued by the concerned Medical Board. The decision to assign regular work is despite the petitioner's physical condition and the respondents' Regulations on assignment of regular work as envisaged under the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 4. This Court has called upon Sri M C Basavaraju to place on record a recent Medical Certificate to assess whether there must be any interference with the second respondent's impugned decision. The learned counsel has placed on record Medical Certificate dated 18.12.2024 issued by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12958 WP No. 8367 of 2025 Office of Medical Superintendent, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Ms. Renuka, the learned counsel for the respondent is heard in the light of these circumstances. It is seen from this Certificate that the Board has certified that the petitioner has undergone Nephrectomy for Renal Mass in the year 2010, but it has also opined that there is no physical impairment and no further reassessment is needed. In this Court's considered opinion, this Certificate establishes that the petitioner is not justified in requesting for continued light duty, and therefore, there is no justification for interference. The petition stands rejected accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-*