Judgment : 1. The award made by the Labour Court dismissing the Reference is called in question in this writ petition by the Legal Representatives of the deceased ex-employee of the respondent-Corporation. 2. The records reveal that the Kuppanna Naik was the Driver-cum-Conductor working at Sindhanur Depot, Raichur District; due to acquiring of disability, he submitted an application praying for permission to retire voluntarily on 14.3.2007, along with the medical certificate dated 12.3.2007; the said application was accepted on 11.5.2007; from that day onwards, Kuppanna was not the employee of the respondent-Corporation; thereafter, terminal benefits are provided to the first petitioner, who accepted the same; the workman died on 15.2.2011; during his life time, he raised the dispute in Reference No.42/2009 for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2007; the contention of the workman was that under the garb of acceptance of resignation letter dated 14.3.2007, he was terminated on 11.5.2007 without providing him an alternative employment. The said reference came to be rejected by the impugned award. The Legal Representatives of the deceased workman have filed this writ petition questioning the rejection of the Reference. 3. Sri Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was the duty of the respondent-Corporation to explain the workman about the correct legal position and advise him about his legal rights; the workman was not aware of the protection under Law afforded to him; he believed that his blindness would cause him to lose his job and source of livelihood of his family; since he did not know about his legal rights provided to him under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (‘Disabilities Act’ for short) the respondent-Corporation has terminated the workman under the grab of accepting the application for voluntary retirement. 4. The writ petition is opposed by Sri Shivashankar Manur, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation by contending that application is given voluntarily by the workman to retire and the same is accepted by the respondent-Corporation as per law; all the terminal benefits are provided to the workman after his voluntary retirement and therefore it is not open for the claimants to contend that the workman should have been reinstated to duties in an alternative job suitable to his physical condition. 5. The resignation letter at Ex.W1 was accompanied with the medical certificate at Ex.W2, dated 12.3.2007. 5. The resignation letter at Ex.W1 was accompanied with the medical certificate at Ex.W2, dated 12.3.2007. Ex.W3 to W8 are the medical records of the deceased workman. Ex.W8 indicates that the workman was having poor vision in his right eye and the same is not likely to be improved with any means of treatment. Under those circumstances, the workman made an application to voluntarily retire from service, inasmuch as he could not drive the heavy vehicle because of poor vision in his right eye. In all fairness, the respondent-Corporation ought to have advised the workman to be in service and ought to have provided him alternative job suitable to his physical condition. There is nothing on record to show that such a procedure is adopted by the respondent-Corporation. In that context, Sri Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the workman was not aware of protection under law provided to him and he apparently believed that his blindness would cause him to lose his job and source of livelihood of his family. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass & another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported in 1(2008) SLT 406 has condemned very heavily on the conduct of the Officers/Officials of the Corporation in not guiding the workmen properly while accepting the applications for voluntarily retirement in the case of disability while in service. In the said matter also, the workman was completely blind. Per contra, Sri Shivashankar Manur submits that the workman was advised and inspite of the said advice, the workman proceeded to tender his voluntary retirement. But no records are forthcoming in support of the said contention. 6. Sri Muniyallappa, the Divisional Controller of respondent-Corporation was examined as RW.1. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was made by the workman that an alternative job will be provided to the workman in case if the workman suffers disability. He admits that the duty of the Labour Welfare Officer is to advice the labourers/workmen as to their rights and liabilities. In the matter on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the workman was advised suitably either by the superior Officers/Officials of the Corporation or by the Labour Welfare Officer. Unfortunately in the Cross-examination, RW.1 has gone to such an extent of deposing that there is no procedure for providing alternative job to the workman who has suffered disability during service. Unfortunately in the Cross-examination, RW.1 has gone to such an extent of deposing that there is no procedure for providing alternative job to the workman who has suffered disability during service. It is needless to observe that it is incumbent on the part of the employer to provide alternative job if the workman suffers disability during the course of service/employment. 7. Section 47 of Disabilities Act deals with Non-discrimination in Government employments. The said provision clearly discloses that no establishment can dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act further makes it clear that after acquiring disability, if the employee is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits. Proviso further makes it clear that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or till he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It is further made clear under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act that no promotion shall be denied to a workman merely on the ground of disability. In the matter on hand, the benefit arising under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act is not accorded to the workman. Even assuming that the workman did not claim for the benefit under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, the Corporation cannot straight away accept the resignation of the workman. In my considered opinion, it is incumbent on the superior Officers/Officials of the Corporation to bring to the notice of the workman about the rights to get suitable alternative job in the Corporation. The duty of the Labour Welfare Officer as admitted by RW.1 is to educate the workmen by bringing to the notice of the workmen about their rights under various Laws/Statues. 8. In view of the same, in my considered opinion, the Labour Court is not justified in dismissing the Reference. On the other hand, the Labour Court ought to have held that the Corporation should have provided alternative job to the workman suitable to his physical condition. 8. In view of the same, in my considered opinion, the Labour Court is not justified in dismissing the Reference. On the other hand, the Labour Court ought to have held that the Corporation should have provided alternative job to the workman suitable to his physical condition. If it was not possible to adjust the workman against any post, he could have been kept on a supernumerary post until the suitable post was available or till his death, whichever is earlier. In view of the same, the impugned award at Annexure-A, dated 6.8.2011 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same stands quashed. The workman was deemed to be in service on supernumerary post till his death i.e., on 15.2.2011. However, the petitioners are entitled to 50% of the wages from the date of termination till the death of the workman. All other consequences would follow. It is also open for the petitioners-Legal Representatives of the deceased workman on file an application praying for appointment on compassionate ground, if they so choose, in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.