Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
A. Marimuthu
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division – IV) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Pudukottai & Another
W.P.No.15413 of 2003
Decided on: 02-11-2009
Employment Dispute - Employment Rights - Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Act, Section 47 - The court discussed the petitioner's request for alternative employment after being discharged on medical grounds. The court referred to various decisions and legal provisions, including Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Act, to support the petitioner's claim for alternative employment. The court emphasized the duty of the employer to provide alternative employment to employees discharged on medical grounds and highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 47 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, was discharged on medical grounds due to defective vision. He sought alternative employment, citing his unblemished service record and the duty of the employer to provide alternative employment as per legal provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's discharge on medical grounds and the failure to provide alternative employment violated the legal provisions, including Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Act.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's request for alternative employment, the duty of the employer to provide alternative employment as per legal provisions, and the violation of the petitioner's employment rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Act, which requires the employer to provide alternative employment to employees discharged on medical grounds. The court also referred to various decisions supporting the duty of the employer to provide alternative employment.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent to provide alternative employment to the petitioner from the date of his discharge with pay protection, continuity of service, and all other attendant benefits for which he is legally entitled to, except back wages.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to provide him an alternative employment in the post of Helper or Office Assistant by retaining the same scale of pay last drawn by him.
2. Upon instructions, the petitioner would state that the respondent Transport Corporation is a public transport undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu; earlier, such transport undertakings in the state of Tamil Nadu was bifurcated into several units and made as the corporation. The Government of Tamil Nadu, thereafter dissolved all such transport corporations and the public transports in the State were brought under six divisions of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-IV) Ltd., Pudukottai is concerned in this writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner, he is qualified up to IX standard and he was appointed as Driver in the respondent Corporation on 15.08.1998 and his services were confirmed and made permanent with effect from 15.06.1999. Since the date of his appointment, he was discharging his duties without any blemish whatsoever.
3a. The petitioner would further state that he has been receiving accident free driving award for three consecutive years; while so, by letter dated 04.09.2002, the respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur; pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 24.09.2002, 010. 2002 and 110. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 212. 2002 by the respondent Corporation as to why he should not be discharged from service, as the Medical Board recommended that his eye sight is not fit enough to drive vehicle.
3b. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.12.2002 stating the facts as to how the eye drops caused trouble to him during the first checking. He also requested to send him for a second check-up. Further, he requested to consider his case sympathetically as he has to support his large family. He also pointed out that he has not caused any accident during his term of service. However, without considering his explanation properly, the respondent Corporation passed an order dated 23.01.2003 discharging him from service on medical grounds, however, he was granted liberty to appeal against the said order in 90 days.
3c. Based on the statement of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner made a representation to the Collector, Pudukottai and a representation dated 22.02.2003 to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation to provide him an alternative employment. However, even after a long lapse of time, no steps were taken. According to the petitioner, he is the only bread winner for his family which consists of his wife, 3 daughters and his old aged father and mother; they live in a rental house and are now suffering inexplicably without any income due to his non-employment.
3d. The petitioner would further state that in his representation dated 22.02.2003, he brought to the knowledge of the respondent with regard to the Government Order and direction of the Supreme court which categorically directed the employers that an employee discharged on medical grounds should be given an alternative job. However, the respondent neither complied with his lawful demand nor has chosen to send any reply even though they have lawful bounden duty.
4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents would submit that the petitioner was appointed on 15.08.1998 as Driver in the erstwhile Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation and his services were confirmed from 15.06.1999. The respondents admitted that the petitioner received accident free award for 2000, 2001 and 2002. While the petitioner was working in the Corporation, he was directed for eye-test before the Medical Officer of the Corporation, as he had crossed 40 years of age. The Medical Officer opin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
