Judgment 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner management seeking to challenge an award passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.83 of 2000. By the impugned award, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination given to the 2nd respondent and directed his reinstatement in any other alternate employment or in a supernumerary post together with backwages for the period of non-employment 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 20.6.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently the workman filed M.P.Nos.2 and 3 3 of 2007 seeking to vacate the interim order and also payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.3 of 2007, the 2nd respondent workman stated that in view of disability, he should be given light duty by taking into account his health condition. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in JT 1994 (2) SC 94. Heavy reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 4. On notice in the Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner management has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.4.2008. In the counter affidavit, it was claimed by them that the 2nd respondent also filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.904 of 1996. A compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs with 12% interest was ordered by the Tribunal and the amount together with interest would have worked out to Rs.7.5 Lakhs. It was also claimed that the provisions of the Disabilities Act will not apply to private employer. Apart from that, they have also stated that they have another Textile Unit, namely Chandra Textiles Private Limited, at Coimbatore and if the 2nd respondent was willing to work in the textile unit, they are willing to employ him in any Department where he is capable to attending the work on the basis of last drawn wages drawn by him in the earlier employment. However, those two applications were not ordered till date. 5. Subsequently, the matter was referred to for the resolution of the dispute by the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat found that both parties were not willing to settle the matter. However, those two applications were not ordered till date. 5. Subsequently, the matter was referred to for the resolution of the dispute by the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat found that both parties were not willing to settle the matter. The records were sent back to this Court for determination of the case on merits. 6. It is seen from the records that the 2nd respondent was employed in the petitioner mill since 1985 and he was made permanent during the year 1991. On 4.2.1995 in the accident, the petitioner's right wrist got fractured and got a plastic surgery and subsequently he also became fit. After his treatment during the year 1996, he joined duty and worked for four days. Subsequently, he was discharged from service with effect from 12.2.1999. 7. The workman raised an industrial dispute against the non-employment before the Government Labour Officer at Erode. The said Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave his failure report on 21.5.1999. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement dated 'nil' before the Labour Court, Salem. The Labour Court, namely the 1st respondent registered the dispute as I.D.No.83 of 2000 and issued notice to the management. 8. The management filed a counter statement dated 24.5.2000. In the counter statement they had stated that the workman had absented himself from work from 4.2.1995 upto 25.3.1997. The date of the accident, namely 4.2.1995 was admitted. Therefore, he was on leave from 4.2.1995 to 16.2.1996. When he was assigned the work of Helper in the Printing Department of the management, a show cause notice was issued to him on 26.9.1998. The workman gave his explanation setting forth the circumstances under which he was unable to work. Considering the same, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. It was also stated that since it is a case of termination due to continued ill health, the question of invoking compliance on the retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act will not arise. 9. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he had examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side 2 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 and Ex.M.2. On the side of the management, one P.Mohan Doss was examined as M.W.1 and on their side 45 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.45. 10. 9. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he had examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side 2 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 and Ex.M.2. On the side of the management, one P.Mohan Doss was examined as M.W.1 and on their side 45 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.45. 10. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as a case of continued ill health and that the management has the obligation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 particularly under Section 47, no employee can be dispensed with if he has acquired any disability during his employment. It is on the basis of the provisions of the said Act, the Labour Court passed the impugned order granting relief as noted already. 11. However, Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalco Engineering Privae Limited vs. Sathish Prabhakar Padhye and others reported in (2010) 4 SCC 378 . The Supreme Court analysing the provisions of the Disabilities Act held that the said Act will not apply to private employer or even to the Companies registered under the Companies Act. In paragraph Nos.25 and 26, it was observed as follows: "25.) It is clear that the legislative intent was to apply Section 47 of the Act only to such establishments as were specifically denied as "establishment" under Section 2(k) of the Act and not to other establishments. The legislative intent was to define "establishment" so s to be synonymous with the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Private employers, whether individuals, partnerships, proprietary concerns or companies (other than government companies) are clearly excluded from the "establishments" to which Section 47 of the Act will apply. 26.) There is yet another indication in Section4 7 that private employers are excluded. The caption/marginal note of Section4 7 describes the purport of the section as nondiscrimination in government employment. The word "government: is issued in the caption broadly to refer to "State" as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. 26.) There is yet another indication in Section4 7 that private employers are excluded. The caption/marginal note of Section4 7 describes the purport of the section as nondiscrimination in government employment. The word "government: is issued in the caption broadly to refer to "State" as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. If the intention of the legislature was to prevent discrimination of persons with disabilities in any kind of employment the marginal note would have simply described the provision as "non-discrimination in employment" and sub-section (1) of section 47 would have simply used the word "any employer" instead of using the word "establishment" and then taking care to define the word "establishment". The non-use of the words "any employer" and "any employment" and specific use of the words "government employment" and "establishment" (as defined) demonstrates the clear legislative intent to apply the provisions of Section 47 only to employment under the State and not to employment under others. While the marginal note may not control the meaning of the body of the section, it usually gives a safe indication of the purport of the section to the extent possible. Be that as it may." 12. In the light of the above judgment, the findings rendered by the Labour Court in invoking the provisions of the Disabilities Act is misconceived and does not stand to legal reason. Hence, the Award is liable to be set aside. But, however, the award of the Labour Court is set aside only insofar as it places reliance upon the Disabilities Act, 1995. However, it is open to the Labour Court to consider, in the facts and circumstances of the case even for the misconduct of availing leave is concerned, whether the workman is entitled for any relief or whether the case of the 2nd respondent falls within the meaning of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this purpose, the industrial dispute in I.D.No.83 OF 2000 is remanded back for fresh disposal by the 1st respondent. 13. Since the Industrial Dispute relates to the year 2000 and more than 11 years have elapsed, the 1st respondent shall give preference for the disposal of the case and in any event dispose of the same on merits in the light of the observation made by this Court, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.