JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Single in Special Civil Application No.5382/2017 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Reference (IT) No.164/2010 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the said reference preferred by the concerned original workman and directed the appellant herein – management – AMTS to grant to the original workman the pay scale of the cadre of conductor, benefits of higher pay scale and consequential benefits, the original petitioner – AMTS has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the respondent workman was employed as a conductor and came to be appointed on permanent basis with effect from 01.11.1995. He suffered paralysis in the year 2003. As per the medical certificate dated 28.07.2004 produced by him from L.G. Hospital, he was declared as a disabled person. He was on long leave. On his resumption of duty a settlement under Section 2P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) came to be arrived at on 29.03.2005 and a fresh appointment as Peon to the workman was offered. After a period of 5 years, the workman raised industrial dispute making a grievance that as per the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1995”), the workman ought to have been continued as a conductor and/or in the pay scale of conductor and he ought to have been offered the like duty in the pay scale of conductor. Instead and de hors the provision of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, he was given fresh appointment as a Peon. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute which was referred to the learned Tribunal, which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.164/2010. Instead and de hors the provision of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, he was given fresh appointment as a Peon. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute which was referred to the learned Tribunal, which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.164/2010. The aforesaid came to be answered by the learned Tribunal in favour of the workman and the learned Tribunal partly allowed the said reference by directing the AMTS to grant the pay scale / higher pay scale and other benefits in the pay scale of conductor, as per section 47 of the Act, 1995. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such during the pendency of the reference, the workman died. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.10.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.164/2010 by which the learned Tribunal directed the AMTS to grant all the benefits to the workman in the pay scale of conductor considering section 47 of the Act, 1995, the AMTS preferred Special Civil Application No.5382/2017. By impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition, which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Shri Deep Vyas, learned Advocate has appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Vyas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that while dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that there was a 2P settlement arrived at on 29.03.2005 by which, as agreed, the workman was given the fresh appointment as a Peon and which he accepted and thereafter the Industrial Dispute was raised after a period of 5 years. 3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Vyas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that once there was a settlement under Section 2P of the ID Act, under which the workman was appointed as a Peon, thereafter the workman shall not be entitled to the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995. 3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Vyas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that once there was a settlement under Section 2P of the ID Act, under which the workman was appointed as a Peon, thereafter the workman shall not be entitled to the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that the original workman was the permanent employee. He suffered from paralysis while in service. That he was declared as a disabled person and therefore, not fit for the post of conductor on which he was serving. Therefore, as such the workman was entitled to the benefit / protection flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 which reads as under: “47. Nondiscrimination in Government employments.—(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided 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: Provided further 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. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 4.1 Instead, the workman was appointed on fresh appointment as Peon under the settlement under Section 2P of the ID Act. Therefore, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute and claimed the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 and claimed the pay scale of conductor, the post on which he was working at the time when he was declared disabled. Therefore, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute and claimed the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 and claimed the pay scale of conductor, the post on which he was working at the time when he was declared disabled. That the learned Tribunal has allowed the said reference and has directed the AMTS – employer to grant the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 by directing the AMTS to pay the difference in the pay scale as a conductor with all consequential benefits. The said judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The sole contention on behalf of the appellant is that in view of settlement under Section 2P of the ID Act under which the concerned workman was offered a fresh appointment as Peon and which the workman accepted and worked for 5 years as a Peon, the workman shall not be entitled to the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995. However, it is required to be noted that as such Act, 1995 is a benevolent Act to protect the rights of the persons with disabilities and it is a special Act. The object and purpose of the Act, 1995 is to confer and protect the rights to the persons with disabilities. Section 47 of the Act, 1995 is one of the benevolent provision to protect the rights of the persons with disabilities. Infact a duty is cast upon the employer to protect and confer the rights to the concerned workman who is declared as a disabled person more particularly the rights flowing from the Act, 1995. Instead the workman was offered the fresh appointment as a Peon which was lower than the post of conductor which the workman was occupying at the time of disability. A person who was suffering from paralysis and was declared as a disabled person had no other alternative but to accept what was offered and therefore, he might have accepted the appointment as a Peon. However, that does not debar him from claiming the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 which otherwise he was entitled to. As observed hereinabove infact it was the duty cast upon the employer to protect and confer the right to such disabled person, flowing from the Act, 1995. However, that does not debar him from claiming the benefit flowing from section 47 of the Act, 1995 which otherwise he was entitled to. As observed hereinabove infact it was the duty cast upon the employer to protect and confer the right to such disabled person, flowing from the Act, 1995. 4.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal committed any error in directing the AMTS to grant the benefit / pay scale of the post of conductor, the right which the workman was entitled to as per section 47 of the Act, 1995. The same is rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge. No interference of this Court is called for. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14515/2017 In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.14515/2017 also stands dismissed.