When an Employee acquires disability at Work
This multi-case filing judgement consisted of Petitioners who are/were recruited as Drivers. They were declared unfit to drive when they acquired a disability. The petitioners sought pay and allowances for the period they were put off duty, provision of an alternative job with same pay and allowances as was paid to them as Drivers. Since the issues referred to in all the writ petitions were the same, they were considered jointly and disposed by this common order.
M. Venkateswarlu vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Court: In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
Judge: Justice P Naveen Rao
Facts:
W.P.No.36135 of 2015:M. Venkateswarlu was appointed as a Driver in 1996 in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). On 21.11.2012, the Medical Board found that he had Cataract in both eyes and on 10.04.2013was declared unfit to drive but fit enough to carry out alternate duties. On consideration of the report of the Medical Board, Venkateswarluwas provided re-employment as Shramik (labourer), which he joined the same day. He then went on to file a petition to enable him to receive salary and allowances payable to the post of the driver from 22.11.2012 to 09.04.2013, the period during which he was not allowed to work as a driver; and for protection of the pay drawn by him in his original post.
M V Ramana Rao, a Driver with APSRTC was found to have a problem in his ears. He was examined by the Senior Medical Officer and certified unfit due to defective hearing and Tinnitus. On the basis of this medical report, Ramana Rao was forced to take leave and his claim for alternative position was also rejected on the grounds that Tinnitus per sewas not mentioned in the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995.
When the cases reached the Court, the points under consideration were:
- Whether a Driver is entitled to pay and allowances for the period he was put off duty after he was declared as unfit?
- When a driver was declared as unfit to drive and is provided alternative employment, whether he is entitled to pay protection as drawn by him in the post of Driver?
Directions of the Court:
In a moving summary, Justice P Naveen Rao stated that Corporations had unceremoniously dumped these employees as they were not productive anymore and as a panacea had offered them a lower post of Shramik or its equivalent. This offer did not grant pay protection; salary and allowances during the period when they were put off duty after they were declared unfit to drive enabling them to join the list of scores of disabled persons in this country who are ill-treated, neglected with their fundamental and human rights violated. In the process and despite many judicial decisions, large corporations continue to ill-treat them, drive them to litigation, contest each case tooth and nail and comply only when intra-court appeal and SLP are dismissed.
For the present series of cases, the Court decided that:
- All the drivers who are not assigned work after they were declared as medically unfit are entitled to pay and allowances attached to the post of Driver till they retire from service or an alternative job is provided to them. The Court decreed that such persons need to be paid arrears with 8% interest from the due date till the date of payment. Further, it was stated the direction was general and applicable to all Drivers. Thus, the Corporations would need to undertake a detailed review of all such claims and ensure that no driver is denied pay and allowances on this issue.
- If alternative job cannot be provided, the Drivers would be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or till the timehe attained the age of superannuation (whichever is earlier) and be paid pay and allowances of the post of Drivers until they attained the age of superannuation.
- These directions are applicable to all in similar positions.
Case Filed Under:
- Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16, 2, 21, 226, 27, 4;
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 12(3), 2(oo), 2(oo)(c);
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Sections 2, 2(i), 2(t), 33, 38, 47, 47(1), 47(2), 48(1), 60, 62, 63, 72
Citation: LQ 2016 HC 15603
Writ Petitions: WP(C). Nos:
2012: 36337, 39206, 39353, 39354
2013: 4233, 7633, 18451, 24113, 26188, 26551, 33765, 33987, 34189
2014: 2614, 2734, 5531, 7281, 7316, 7354, 12254, 15516, 19726, 22292, 34206
2015: 10698, 10832, 32784, 35578, 35588, 36135, 36157, 36348, 36690, 36692, 36700, 36728, 36747, 37539, 37550, 37838, 38060, 39767, 40775, 40824 & 40935
Cases Cited:
- Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs. Union of India
- G.Muthu vs. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
- Airport Authority of India vs. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh (LPA 1601 of 2005 of Delhi High Court)
- Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation vs. B.Gnanshekharan (W.A.No.860 of 2007) (Madras High Court).
- Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai vs. Srirang Anand Rao Jhadav (Bombay High Court)
- Bhagavandas Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board
- Ritesh vs. Dakshin Haryana BijiliVitaran (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9194/2008)
- State Bank of Patiala Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin
- Order of High Court at Hyderabad in W.A.No.739 of 2013
- Order of High Court at Hyderabad in W.A.No.829 of 2013
- Order of High Court at Hyderabad in W.A.S.R.No.96347 of 2014
- Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others,
- W.P.No.22269 of 2012, dated 25.09.2012;
- W.P.No.26604 of 2015 and batch, dated 08.09.2015;
- WP No.30421 of 2013 dated 03.09.2015,
- APSRTC, Muesheerabad, Hyderabad and others vs. K.Moses
- W.A.No.696 of 2013 dated 28.06.2013
- Kunal Singh vs. Union of India and another
- Union of India and another vs. National Federation of the Blind and others
- Airport Authority of India vs. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narian Singh (LPA No.1601 of 2005 of Delhi High Court)
- Hawa Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
- P. Kasilingam and others vs. P.S.G. College of Technology and others (1995 Supp (2) SCC 348)
- Paul Enterprises and others vs. Rajib Chatterjee and Company (2009) 3 SCC 709)
- W.A.No.623 of 2007 APSRTC vs. Sd Esa Ali
- GeetabenRatilal Patel vs. District Primary Education officer (2013) 7 SCC 182
- Abdul Asad (W.A.No.739 of 2013)