DALCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. vs SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(UK) 153

2010 (2) UAD 15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad
Civil Appeal No. 1886 of 2007
DALCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE & ORS. – Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1858 of 2007
FANCY REHABILITATION TRUST & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 31.03.2010

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Majithia, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. Vinay Navare, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaurav Mita, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Antima Bazaz (for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co.), Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, M/s. Kaitan & Co., Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Secs. 47, 2(k) and Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 6 and Constitution of India, Art. 12 — Scope and ambit of — Held an employee of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, other than a Government Company as defined in Sec. 617 thereof — Is not entitled to claim any relief with reference to Sec. 47, 1995 Act. (Paras 10 to 16)
       (B) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Sec. 2(k) — Crucial word 'establishment' — Meaning of in sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act 1995 — It is an exhaustive definition, and covers the following categories of employers — (i) A corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial, or State Act — (ii) An authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government — (iii) A local authority — (iv) A Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; and — (v) Departments of a Government. (Para 6)
       (C) Statute — Interpretation of — Principle of — Socio-economic legislations to be interpreted liberally — Also, Courts should adopt different yardsticks and measures for interpreting socio-economic statutes, as compared to penal statutes, and taxing statutes — The courts cannot obviously expand the application of a provision in a socio-economic legistlation by judicial interpretation, to levels unintended by the legislature, or in a manner which militates against the provisions of the statute itself or against any constitutional limitations. (Para 15)
       (D) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Sec. 39 — Provisions of — Applicability — Sec. 39 casts an obligation on all educational institutions, to reserve not less than 3 percent of the seats for persons with disabilities — It is well recognized that an aided private school would be included within the definition of 'State' in regard to its acts and functions as an instrumentality of the State — Therefore, care is taken to apply the provisions of the Act to only educational institutions belonging to the government or receiving aid from the government and not to unaided private educational institutions.
        (Para 16)
       ¼v½ v'kDr O;fDr;ksa ¼leku voljksa] vf/kdkjksa dh lqj{kk vkSj iw.kZ Hkkxhnkjh½ vfèkfu;e] 1995] /kkjk 47] 2(K) vkSj dEiuht vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 6 vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku vuqPNsn 12 dh ifjf/k ,oa foLrkj & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k & ,d dEiuh ftldk xBu dEiuht ,DV ds vk/khu gqvk gks vkSj tks /kkjk 617 ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ljdkjh dEiuh ls fHké gks dks /kkjk 47 vf/kfu;e 1995 ds vUrxZr fdlh izdkj ds vuqrks"k dh ek¡x djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ¼izLrj 10 ls 16½
       ¼c½ v'kDr O;fDr;ksa ¼leku voljksa] vf/kdkjksa dh lqj{kk vkSj iw.kZ Hkkxhnkjh½ vfèkfu;e] 1995] /kkjk 2(K) & fu.kkZ;d 'kCn ßLFkkiukÞ dk vFkZ /kkjk 47 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ vf/kfu;e 1995 esa fn;k x;k gS & ;g ,d Fkdh gqbZ ifjHkk"kk gS vkSj fu;ksDrkvksa dh fuEukafdr Jsf.k;ksa dks vkPNkfnr djrh gS (i) ,slh fuxe ftl dk xBu fdlh dsUæh;] izkUrh; vFkok jkT; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr gqvk gks (ii) dksbZ vf/kdj.k ;k laLFkk ftldk fu;a=.k ;k LokfeRo ;k lgk;rk ljdkj }kjk dh tkrh gks (iii) LFkkuh; vf/kdj.k (iv) ,d ljdkjh dEiuh tks fd /kkjk 617 dEiuh ,DV lu~ 1995 esa ifjHkkf"kr gS] vkSj (v) ljdkjh foHkkxA ¼izLrj 6½
       ¼l½ vf/kfu;e dh O;k[;k djus dk fl)kUr & lkekftd@vkfFkZd dkuwuksa dh O;k[;k mnkjrk ds lkFk dh tk, & U;k;ky;ksa dks Hkh fHké iSekuk vkSj mik;] lkekftd vkfFkZd vf/kfu;e dh O;k[;k ds fy, nkf.Md vkSj dj lEcU/kh vf/kfu;eksa dh rqyuk esa viukuk pkfg, & lkekftd vkfFkZd dkuwuksa dh O;k[;k U;k;ky;ksa }kjk U;kf;d O;k[;k ds vk/kkj ij Li"Vr;k bl izdkj ugha dh tk ldrh ftlls fo/kkf;dk }kjk vfHkizsfjr [kkeh dks Hkjk tk, vFkok ,sls rjhds ls tks vius vki gh fdlh vfèkfu;e ds izkfo/kku ds fo#) gksrk gS vFkok fdlh laoS/kkfud ifjlheu ds fo#) gksA ¼izLrj 15½
       ¼n½ v'kDr O;fDr;ksa ¼leku voljksa] vf/kdkjksa dh lqj{kk vkSj iw.kZ Hkkxhnkjh½ vfèkfu;e] 1995] /kkjk 39 & ds izkfo/kku dk ykxw gksuk & /kkjk 39 mu lHkh 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa ij ;g nkf;Ro vk;n djrk gS fd os v'kDr O;fDr;ksa dks 3 izfr'kr ls de lhVksa ij vkj{k.k uk djsa & ;g Hkyh Hkk¡fr laKku esa gS fd lgk;rk izkIr futh Ldwy Hkh LVsV vFkok jkT; dh ifjHkk"kk esa lfEefyr gksxh tks fd bldh dk;Ziz.kkyh ds lEcU/k esa jkT; ds ek/;e ds :i esa gksxh & blfy, vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa dks ykxw djus esa dsoy ljdkjh vFkok lgk;rk izkIr 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa] vlgk;rk izkIr futh 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa dh rqyuk esa vf/kd lko/kkuh cjrh tkrh gSA ¼izLrj 16½

JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. — Facts in CA No. 1886/2007

The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent – S.P. Padhye (also referred to as the employee’) was employed as a Telephone Operator by the appellant for more than two decades. The respondent’s service was terminated by the appellant with effect from 31.12.2000 on the ground that he had become deaf (85% reduction in ability to hear). The respondent complained to the Disability Commissioner, Pune, in regard to such termination, alleging that he was fit, able and normal when he joined service of the appellant and as he acquired the hearing impairment during the period of service, he should have been continued in employment in some suitable post. The Disability Commissioner made an order dated 12.10.2001 suggesting to the employer to undertake a social responsibility, by re-employing the respondent to discharge any other work. The suggestion was not accepted by the employer.

2. According to the respondent, the Commissioner, instead of making a mere suggestion, ought to have issued a direction to the employer, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘the Act’, for short). He therefore filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs (i) quashing of the order dated 12.10.2001; and (ii) a direction to implement the provisions of the Disabilities Act by directing the employer to reinstate him in service in a suitable post, with retrospective effect from 1.1.2001, in the same pay-scale and service benefits. The High Court allowed the said writ petition by judgment dated 23.12.2005, and directed the employer to reinstate the respondent and shift him to a suitable post with the same pay-scale and service benefits and with full back-wages. The High Court held that the respondent, though a private limited company, was an “establishment” as defined under section 2(k) of the Act and consequently section 47 of the Act enjoined it not to dispense with the services of its employee who acquired a disability.

Facts in CA No. 1858/2007

3. The first Appellant is a Public Trust (for short the ‘Trust’) working for the benefit of the physically and mentally challenged persons, took up a house-keeping contract from the third respondent Company on 24.7.2000. The appellant employed several, physical handicapped persons for executing the said contract. The third respondent terminated the appellant’s contract on 18.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a complaint dated 22.7.2006 with the Disability Commissioner, Pune followed by a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the notice terminating the contract. The appellant also sought a direction for rehabilitation of the persons with disabilities who were employed by it for executing the said house-keeping contract, under the provisions of the Act. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 19.9.2006 dismissed the writ petition holding that the third respondent was not an “establishment” within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Act and, consequently, the provisions of the Act did not apply and that the Disability Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the third respondent. It also held that the earlier decision in S.P. Padhye (which is the subject matter of the first case) was per incuriam as it ignored two binding decisions of this Court – the Constitution Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [1975 (1) SCC 421] and the decision in S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi [1981 (3) SCC 431]. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.

Questions for decision

4. The employee relies on section 47 which provides that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. Section 47 of the Act is extracted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(UK) 153

Cases Referred (6)