2004 Supreme(Mad) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Jayasimha Babu and M.Karpagavinayagam, JJ.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,represented by its Managing Director, Division I, Pallavan Salai, Chennai
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, High Court Compound, Chennai and another
W.A.No.64 of 2001
Decided On : 15 March 2004
R.P.Kapilan, for Appellant.
V.Prakash, for Respondent No.2.
There should no discrimination against persons suffering from disability.
Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 14-Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996-Section 47-Disablement acquired during service-Service terminated-There should be no discrimination against persons suffering from disability-Employer did not gave effect to the special enactment-Order of termination vitiated.
2. He challenged the order of termination before the Labour Court but without success. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition filed by him challenging the order of the Labour Court came up, having regard to all the facts of the case allowed the petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court, set aside the order discharging him which order had been passed on 27.1.1994, and directed the employer to reinstate the petitioner before him and give him light duty or such other work sedantary in nature suitable to his health condition but subject to payment of the scale of pay which he had been drawing as a conductor and also one half of all the arrears payable between 27.1.1994, and till the date of reinstatement within three months’ time from the date of his order, which was made on 13.12.1999.
3. We are informed by the counsel for the employee that the employee has not been reinstated as a conductor but as a junior helper and that he is drawing a scale of pay which is about Rs.300 less than what he was drawing when he was a conductor. The employee has accepted that employment and has not complained.
4. Learned counsel for the employer submitted that since the writ petitioner has now been given employment, the arrears of pay which the learned Judge had directed to be given should be computed on the scales of pay of a helper and not as a conductor. That argument is wholly untenable. The learned Judge has rightly held that the order of discharge on the sole ground that he had become disabled which disablement he had acquired in the course of his employment, was not sustainable, and therefore he should be put back in a position with the same emoluments as the one held by him at the time of his discharge. That position being that of a conductor, the arrears of pay directed to be paid would be that which is payable to one holding the post of a conductor.
5. Counsel for the appellant sought to rely on a Government Order of the year 1981 which directs that the persons who are found medically unfit to continue to work on account of inter alia, of disability acquired during the course of employment should be treated only as a fresh recruits. It was therefore, claimed that the Government Order should be allowed to be implemented and the employees be treated as a fresh recruit.
6. We see no substance in this contention. That Government Order on which reliance was placed was made at a time when Parliament had not legislated with reference to persons who suffer from disabilities. Parliament having taken note of the plight of the disabled - either born disabled or those who acquired it later, has legislated a special enactment for their benefit - "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995".
7. That Act was enacted in the year 1995. Most of the agencies of the Government as also public at large appear to have remained quite ignorant of it’s beneficial provisions and not enough care has been taken by those concerned to ensure the benefits conferred by that Act are in fact extended to those entitled thereto.
8. One of the provisions contained in that enactment in Chapter VIII titled "Non-Discrimination" which consists of Secs.44 to 47 is Sec.47 which reads thus:
"Sec.47. Non-discrimination in Government employment: (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 suit