2023 Supreme(Ker) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., Represented By Its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Lissiamma James, W/o. P.C. James and Ors. – Respondents
OP (CAT) No. 72 Of 2022
Decided On : 21-08-2023

The grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not preclude the reliefs under the Persons with Disabilities Act. The provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act should be interpreted in a purposive and beneficial manner, in line with the principles of statutory construction.

Headnote:

PWD Act, 1995 - Section 47, Section 59, Section 60, Section 61, Section 62 The court analyzes the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, including Section 47 which prohibits the dispensation with or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service, and Section 59 which empowers the Chief Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. The court also discusses the powers and functions of the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioner under Sections 60, 61, and 62. The court interprets these provisions in the context of the case and concludes that the employee is entitled to benefits under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

An employee suffered a serious accident during employment and his post trauma claims remained unresolved until his death. The petitioners, the employer and its General Manager, challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing them to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits to the legal heirs of the employee. The petitioners argue that a previous order by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, which found that the employee is not entitled to any benefits prior to the date of issuance of the Disability Certificate, is final and binding. They also argue that the employee was relieved from services in 2014 and all retiral benefits were disbursed. The respondents argue that the previous order is not final and binding, and that the employee is entitled to benefits from 2010 onwards. The court finds that the previous order does not determine the rights of the parties and is not an adjudication. The court also finds that the relieving order produced by the petitioners is not valid and genuine. The court concludes that the employee is entitled to benefits under the Persons with Disabilities Act and dismisses the petition. The court modifies the order of the Tribunal to stipulate the period of entitlement based on the date of gratuity disbursal rather than the date of death.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court concludes that the grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not preclude the reliefs under the Persons with Disabilities Act. The court also interprets the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act in a purposive and beneficial manner, in line with the principles of statutory construction. The court emphasizes the need to bridge the gap between the law and society and to advance the cause of justice. The court approves the decision of the Tribunal to grant relief to the legal heirs of the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The previous order of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is not final and binding as it does not determine the rights of the parties. The relieving order produced by the employer is not valid and genuine. The employee is entitled to benefits under the Persons with Disabilities Act. The grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not preclude the reliefs under the Persons with Disabilities Act. The provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act should be interpreted in a purposive and beneficial manner, in line with the principles of statutory construction.

Result: The court dismisses the petition and confirms the order of the Tribunal directing the employer to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits to the legal heirs of the employee. The court modifies the order to stipulate the period of entitlement based on the date of gratuity disbursal rather than the date of death. The employer is given one month to disburse the amounts due to the legal heirs.