Judgment :- (This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.654 of 2001 dated 22.4.2004 and quash the same thereby direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service by providing him a suitable job with all backwages and attendant benefits.) By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court, Salem, dated 22.4.2004 made in I.D.No.654 of 2001 and reinstate the petitioner in service by providing him a suitable job with all backwages and attendant benefits. 3. Petitioner joined the second respondent Corporation as driver in the year 1984. In the year 1997, petitioner was asked to appear before the Dean of Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, for periodical medical check up and accordingly petitioner appeared before the Dean and eye vision check up was done to the petitioner. The Dean issued a certificate on 18.12.1997 certifying that owing to defective eye vision of left eye of the petitioner, he is unfit to work as a Driver. Based on the said certificate, the second respondent discharged the petitioner from service by order dated 6.2.1998, which order was challenged before the first respondent herein in I.D.No.65 4 of 2001. The Labour Court, by award dated 22.4.2004, justified the discharge order and directed the second respondent to provide alternate appointment to the petitioner after settling terminal benefits within a period of three months. The said award was passed based on G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 2.7.1981 as well as 12(3) settlement, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996, mandates the second respondent to give alternate appointment in the case of physical disability. The said award was passed based on G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 2.7.1981 as well as 12(3) settlement, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996, mandates the second respondent to give alternate appointment in the case of physical disability. Section 47 of the said Act states that the disabled employee shall be retained in service either in the same post or shifted to some other post with same scale of pay and service benefits and if alternate suitable post is not available, the concerned employee shall be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier, and he shall not be denied promotion merely on the ground of his disability. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the second respondent is bound by section 47 of the Act as no exemption order is issued by the Government for not complying with the said section in respect of the second respondent Corporation. 5. Similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 2 Supreme 102 (Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another), wherein at para 9, it is held as follows, "9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service." 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2003 WLR 398 (Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and another) upheld the order of the learned single Judge cancelling the order of medical invalidation. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2005) 2 LW 565 (Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai v. K. Ravichandran), and also in (2006)1 MLJ 452 (P. Thangamarimuthu v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division-I). In an earlier decision I have also taken similar view, which is reported in (2006)1 MLJ 671 (S.Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai). 7. In an earlier decision I have also taken similar view, which is reported in (2006)1 MLJ 671 (S.Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai). 7. In the light of the above settled legal position, the impugned award of the Labour Court is unsustainable and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 6.2.1998 with all service benefits and backwages, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the petitioner is unable to perform the duties of a Driver, he may be provided alternate employment, but without any monetary loss. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected WPMP is closed.