JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court dated 30.6.1997. By this order, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent in terms of the circular dated 10.9.1995. The petitioner Corporation was further directed to pay the back wages to the respondent with continuity of service. 2. The grievance of the respondent workman in his complaint was that he had been dismissed from service after being found to be medically unfit. The Civil Surgeon, Solapur, has diagnosed him with colour-blindness and, therefore, had declared him to be medically unfit to continue on the post of a driver. This report of the Civil Surgeon was dated 10.12.1990. The respondent was examined afresh by the Medical Board and on 24.7.1991 he was declared unfit to work as a driver by the Board. His services were terminated on 30.9.1991. Being aggrieved by the action taken by the Corporation, the respondent filed a complaint under Item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short, “the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act”). That complaint has been allowed. The revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Labour Court has been confirmed. 3. The main contention of the respondent in his complaint was that, while terminating his services the Corporation had not implemented its policy which was contained in its circular dated 10.9.1975. That policy declares that the Corporation should provide employment to the drivers who are declared unfit by the competent medical authority named in the policy, in other departments or posts. Their services are to be treated as continuous and without affecting the pay drawn by such persons as drivers. The persons are to be employed in other suitable posts depending on their qualifications. An option is also given to the medically unfit driver to have his son or daughter to be recruited either as a driver or on in any other category suitable for the qualifications of such persons. 4. Clause 2 of this circular reads as follows:- “On receipt of this circular, the Unit Heads are requested to examine all cases to be decided under this authority of the above directive of the Corporation and take appropriate action in all cases pertaining to your division. 4. Clause 2 of this circular reads as follows:- “On receipt of this circular, the Unit Heads are requested to examine all cases to be decided under this authority of the above directive of the Corporation and take appropriate action in all cases pertaining to your division. Since many of the drivers already discontinued from Maharashtra S.R.T. Corporation service may not be readily available special efforts will have to be made to communicate decision of the Corporation to enable them to decide which one of the options they should choose, subject to availability of vacancies, and other constraints. Careful selection will have to be made of the persons falling under Part A(v) above. Hence, the drivers who are fit to be appointed as Driver-Trainer will have to be carefully selected and their names towards to the Dy.G.M.(Training) who will finally decide selected such drivers. The drivers who are above 55 years or who have been found medically unfit for colour blindness or night blindness are not to be considered for employment. In all cases, a cooperative accident free record is a major consideration.” 5. Mr.Hegde appearing for the Corporation takes exception to the judgments of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and submits that those drivers who are above 55 years of age or who have been found medically unfit on account of colour blindness or night blindness are not to be considered for employment. He based his argument on the aforesaid Clause 2 of the circular. 6. In my opinion, a proper interpretation of Clause 2 of this circular would be that, those drivers who are fit to be appointed as driver-trainers, have to be selected subject to certain criteria being fulfilled. Such drivers who could be accommodated as driver-trainers, should not be above 55 years of age and should not be colour-blind or suffer from night-blindness. The submission of Mr.Hegde that a driver who is colour-blind or suffers from night-blindness is not entitled to any sort of employment in any other category is unacceptable since that is not the import of the circular. The Labour Court, in my opinion, has committed no error by concluding that the respondent ought to have been reinstated in the light of the circular dated 10.9.1975. The Labour Court, in my opinion, has committed no error by concluding that the respondent ought to have been reinstated in the light of the circular dated 10.9.1975. The petitioner Corporation had failed to follow the policy contained in this circular in the case of the respondent and had terminated his services instead with effect from 30.9.1991. In such circumstances the direction of the Labour Court to grant the respondent back wages is not erroneous. In any event, the circular provides that such drivers who are found medically unfit, are to be placed in a different category with continuity of service. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court cannot be considered to be erroneous or perverse. 7. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.