ORDER S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award in I.D. No. 248/2009 dated 22.8.2012 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent-workman and provide him alternate job under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Act' for short). The Tribunal has denied backwages. 2. The respondent-workman has been working with the petitioner-Corporation as a Driver. On 22.8.2001, while he was discharging his duty as a driver, he suffered fracture of left leg on account of the disc of the wheel falling on his foot. He obtained a certificate from the District Surgeon, Madikeri, dated 20.11.2006, who certified that the respondent is unable to discharge his duties as a driver. Along with the medical certificate, he submitted an application at Annexure 'A' dated 15.12.2006 requesting the Corporation to permit him to retire voluntarily from service in terms of the circular No. 1335 dated 12.8.2005. The Corporation accepted the said application and he was permitted to voluntarily retire from service as per the order at Annexure 'B' dated 11.11.2007. The respondent raised a dispute on 15.5.2008. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication As noticed above, the Tribunal passed an award dated 22.8.2012 at Annexure 'G' directing the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service and provide him alternate work having regard to Section47 of the Act. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation is that petitioner had sustained employment injury. He had voluntarily retired from service by making an application at Annexure 'A' in terms of the circular No. 1335 dated 12.8.2005. In fact, he had obtained a certificate from the District Surgeon to show that he was not in a position to drive the bus any more. Accepting the said application, the Corporation permitted him to voluntarily retire from service and an order was passed to that effect as per Annexure 'B' dated 11.11.2007. After his retirement, the retirement benefits has been paid to the workman in a sum of Rs. 3,32,825/-, which includes gratuity of Rs. 1,02,022/-, VRS benefits of Rs. 1,03,180/-, leave encashment of Rs. 26,206/- and provident fund of Rs. 86,017/-. Learned Counsel submits that the payments have been made by cheque and the cheques have been encashed by the respondent/workman. After his retirement, the retirement benefits has been paid to the workman in a sum of Rs. 3,32,825/-, which includes gratuity of Rs. 1,02,022/-, VRS benefits of Rs. 1,03,180/-, leave encashment of Rs. 26,206/- and provident fund of Rs. 86,017/-. Learned Counsel submits that the payments have been made by cheque and the cheques have been encashed by the respondent/workman. It is argued that the Tribunal is not justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman has sought to justify the impugned award. He submits that the Doctor has issued the medical certificate opining that the respondent-workman is not in a position to drive the bus. The workman is unable to drive any vehicle due to injury to his knee and that he may be given voluntary retirement or provide him less strenuous job. Having regard to Section 47 of the Act, it was the obligation of the Corporation to give alternate job to the respondent-workman, which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned award. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman was working as a Driver in the establishment of the petitioner-Corporation. He had suffered employment injury on account of which he was not in a position to drive the bus. He had obtained a certificate from the Orthopedic Surgeon of District Hospital, Madikeri at Ex. M2, which reads as under: "This is to certify that Mr. H.P. Sridhar was examined by me for his old injury to left knee along with his old records. He has suffered (1) Medical Patellar Retinacular tear with lab. sublaxtion of patellar, (2) grade II partial tear of medical contact big....(3) Grade III tear of anterior horn of lateral meniscus (4) Grade IV chondro.....patellar (5) Early O.A. (6) Knee. He had second injury.....true again on duty and recurrence of symptoms. His disability is connected with both incidents and in my opinion he is unable to drive any vehicle due to instability of.....Knee. He may be given voluntary retirement or less strenuous job." 7. He had second injury.....true again on duty and recurrence of symptoms. His disability is connected with both incidents and in my opinion he is unable to drive any vehicle due to instability of.....Knee. He may be given voluntary retirement or less strenuous job." 7. He made an application to the Corporation at Annexure 'A' dated 15.12.2006 along with the aforesaid certificate stating that having regard to the injury sustained by him in the accident, he is not in a position to drive the bus. He has sought for voluntary retirement in terms of the circular No. 1335 dated 12.8.2005. The application of the petitioner reads as under: 8. In the aforesaid letter, the workman had stated that having regard to the employment injury sustained by him, he is not in a position to drive the bus. Therefore, he sought voluntary retirement. His application was accepted and the Corporation passed an order dated 11.11.2007 permitting the respondent to retire voluntarily. It is also not in dispute that after taking voluntary retirement as above, the Corporation has settled all the benefits arising on account of voluntary retirement, which is as under: SI.No. Details Amount Cheque No. Date 01 Gratuity Rs.1,02.022 506599 23.2.2007 02 VRS Benefits Rs.1,03.180 506600 23.2.2007 03 Leave Eacashment Rs.26,206 506735 10.3.2007 04 Provident fund Rs.86,017 408351 14.3.2007 9. It is also not disputed that payments made by cheques have been encashed by the respondent-workman. After a passage of 1 1/2 years from the date of the order permitting the respondent to voluntarily retire from service, he raised the dispute before the competent authority on 3.5.2008. Though the workman submits that he has raised the dispute earlier to the date of application, no materials have been produced to establish the same. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. 10. Section 47 of the Act states that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee, who acquires a disability during his service. Proviso to this provision states 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. Proviso to this provision states 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. The second proviso states 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 he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. As there is no bar in this provision for a person to voluntarily retire from service, the respondent in terms of the circular No. 1335 dated 12.8.2005 made an application as per Annexure 'A' seeking voluntary retirement on account of the injury sustained by him. In the application, he has categorically stated that he is not in a position to drive the bus any more. The benefits arising out of his retirement voluntarily has also been paid to him. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in setting aside the order of voluntary retirement passed by the Corporation at Annexure 'B' dated 11.11.2007. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 248/2009 dated 22.8.2012 is hereby quashed. 12. In view of the disposal of the writ petition as above, I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.