ORDER : 1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2009 passed in Reference No. 22/2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as under: The deceased Basawaraj Byahatti was working as a driver since 1987 in the petitioner’s Corporation and he has developed ill-ness due to which he could not drive the vehicle he was given work in a lesser strain. On the basis of medical report, the order was passed on 12.02.1999, whereby Basawaraj Byahatti was compulsory retired from service. Basawaraj died on 31.10.2005 living behind his legal representative. Basavaraj Byahatti during his life time, he did not challenge the order of compulsory retirement. After the demises of Basavaraj, the legal heirs of Basavaraj has approached Government of Karnataka for reference, the Government of Karnataka, through Labour Commissioner, Bangalore has referred reference under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called in short Act 1947). The respondents filed a claim petition U/s 10(4)(A) 1947 before the Labour Court challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 22.01.1999. 3. Petitioners filed written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition and it was contended that B.S. Byahatti serving as a driver since 18.11.1976 and he was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated 22.01.1999 and on medical grounds. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation or benefit or job on compensatory ground. There was inordinate delay in raising the dispute.. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the issues: 1. Whether the respondent is justified in compulsorily terminating the claimant from the service on 22.01.1999? 2. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled? 5. The respondent examined MW-1 and got marked Ex.M1 to M10. The petitioner No. 3 was examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W1 to W13. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. Whether the respondent is justified in compulsorily terminating the claimant from the service on 22.01.1999? 2. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled? 5. The respondent examined MW-1 and got marked Ex.M1 to M10. The petitioner No. 3 was examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W1 to W13. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. The Labour Court after recording the evidence held that the petitioner has failed to prove that compulsorily terminating the claimant from the service on 22.01.2019 is illegal and further held that the order of compulsory retirement is illegal, refusal of service benefits to the legal representatives of the claimant is also illegal initially orally the officers of the petitioner accommodate late B.S. Byahatti to work under Storekeeper, later on refused and forced to take a compulsory retirement. Admittedly, the deceased B.S. Byahatti was working as a driver in the petitioner’s Corporation. He was suffering from illness. Due to his illness, the petitioner’s Corporation gave work in a lesser strain, having permitted to work on the lesser strain. All of a sudden, the petitioner’s Corporation has passed order of compulsory retirement. As per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, reads as under: 47. Non-discrimination 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. 8. Section 47 provides that an employee who acquires a disability during his service, establishment shall not dispense with or reduce in rank. The disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers for discharge of their functions. 8. Section 47 provides that an employee who acquires a disability during his service, establishment shall not dispense with or reduce in rank. The disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers for discharge of their functions. Establishment cannot discriminate in the employment. Proviso to Section 47 mandates employer to adjust workmen or keep him in supernumerary post. The petitioner-Corporation has committed an error in passing an order of compulsory retirement. The said order of compulsory retirement is contrary to the provision of Disability Act. This view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in KSRTC vs. Ahmed and Others, 2006 (4) AIR Kar. R. 284 (DB) wherein it is held that Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Partition) Act (1 of 1996) held that Non discrimination in govt. employment - Termination of services of workman/peon on account of permanent total disability - Illegal - Second proviso to Section 47(1) mandates employer to adjust workman or keep him in supernumerary post - However, workman did not challenge his termination - Wife of workman competent to discharge duties of peon, can be appointed on compassionate grounds, and in case of NEKRTC vs. Vasanthrao, 2007 (3) AIR Kar. R. 535. 9. The Labour Court after considering the material on record has rightly held that the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary. The Labour Court while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement directed the respondent to accommodate one of the petitioner in a suitable job on compassionate ground. The respondents have not submitted any application for appointment on compassionate ground without their being an application for appointment of compassionate ground by the petitioner. The Labour Court has committed an error in directing the petitioner to accommodate one of the petitioner in a suitable job on the compassionate ground. To that extent the order of Labour Court deserves to be set aside. 10. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed in part. 11. Award passed by the Labour Court to the extent directing the petitioner to accommodate one of the petitioner in a suitable job on compassionate ground is set aside. Rest of the award is maintained. 12. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to make an application to the petitioner seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. If such application is made by the respondent, the petitioner shall consider the representation in accordance with law.