SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351130

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Suman Shyam, Manjusha Deshpande, JJ
Jyoti Jayesh Tayade – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suresh Pakale, Nilesh Desai
For the Respondents: A. V. Bukhari, Burhan Bukhari, Santosh Parad

Mandatory statutory provisions protect employees who acquire disabilities during their service from termination. Such protection ensures that the period of unlawful termination is treated as continuous employment, thereby overriding the 'no work no pay' doctrine and entitling the employee to full back wages and service benefits.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 47 - Non-discrimination in employment - Employee acquiring disability during service - Statutory duty of employer to protect interest of disabled employee - Prohibition against termination or reduction in rank - Mandatory nature of statutory protection - Employer obligated to adjust employee to suitable post or supernumerary post - (Paras 15, 18, 19, 20).

(B) Back wages - Entitlement to salary during unauthorized termination period - Application of “no work no pay” principle - Statutory protections for disabled employees override general policies regarding work performance - Right to receive unpaid salary and allowances for the duration of illegal termination deemed to be continuous service - (Paras 22, 24, 25).

Facts of the case:
The employee met with an accident while traveling to work, resulting in physical disability. After medical evaluation declared the individual unfit for the existing role, the employer terminated the service. An appellate authority mandated reinstatement, which the employer executed, but failed to compensate the employee for the duration of the gap. The employee challenged the denial of those wages.

Findings of Court:
The legal framework is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to secure the job tenure of those who suffer injuries during their employment. Since the mandatory provisions were violated by the employer’s original termination, the termination was inherently illegal. Therefore, the employee is entitled to full arrears of pay and service benefits, as the legal fiction of continuous service exists despite the physical absence from the workplace.

Issues: Whether an employer is legally permitted to terminate an employee who acquires a disability during service, and whether the “no work no pay” doctrine precludes the payment of back wages when such termination is found to be contrary to statutory mandate.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory provision protecting employees acquiring disability during service is mandatory and imposes a clear obligation on employers. Terminating such employment is non-permissible, and consequently, any period during which the employee was kept out of service due to an illegal termination must be treated as period of continuous service with full entitlement to wages.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of employment, disability, termination, and subsequent reinstatement legal history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. conflict between statutory protection for disabled employees and the ‘no work no pay’ doctrine. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. mandatory nature of section 47 of the act of 1995 in securing employment for disabled persons. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. statutory right to wages for protected employees supersedes the no work no pay principle. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final adjudication declaring illegal termination and direction for payment of arrears and benefits. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT : (Per SUMAN SHYAM, J.)

1. The Writ Petitioner herein had suffered an accident during the course of her service, incurring disability, which had rendered her unfit for job. Resultantly, her service was terminated but in the wake of an order passed by the Commissioner for Person with Disabilities, (Disabled Welfare Commissionerate), she was reinstated in service. The grievance of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is on account of non-payment of her wages during the period in which she had remained out of her job due to termination of her service. The facts and circumstances of the case, as available from the materials on record, shorn of unnecessary details, are as here-under.

2. On 12th April, 1995, the Writ Petitioner, who is a graduate in Arts, was appointed as a Security Guard and posted in the ‘T’ Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. From time to time, her duties/assignment were changed. On 12th August, 2009, when the Petitioner had reported for duty and signed the attendance-sheet, she was asked to report for duty at the Security Post of Mulund General Hospital i.e. Agarwal Municipal Hospital. While travelling to the said hospital in a motorcycle with her husband, she had met with an accident. On being hit by a car, the motorcycle in which the Petitioner was travelling, was dragged to some distance and she fell down and sustained serious injuries on her head, neck, left shoulder and back. The Petitioner had to remain hospitalized for twelve days in the Agarwal Municipal Hospital and, thereafter, she was advised bed rest for three months. On 1st September, 2009, the Petitioner had applied for Special Leave, which was sanctioned for the period from 12th August, 2009 to 16th November, 2009. On 24th April, 2012, the Petitioner had made a request for assigning her some light duty. Accordingly, the authorities had assigned her light duty (fixed point duty) at the Agarwal Municipal Hospital itself. However, on 7th January, 2013, the Petitioner was referred for medical examination before the Municipal Medical Board. She had accordingly appeared before which. On 15th January, 2013, the Medical Board had opined that the Petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55% and that she was unfit for the job of Security Guard. A recommendation was, however, made that the Petitioner should be given some light duty. On 21st January, 2013, the Medical Officer of Sion Hospital had certified that the Petitioner was suffering from Motor Neuron Disease. On 1st July, 2013, a physically unfit certificate was issued in respect of the Petitioner, which was followed by the order dated 31st July, 2013, issued by the Respondent No.2, whereby the Petitioner was asked to surrender her uniform. On 23rd August, 2013, another Communication was issued by the Respondent No.2, whereby the Petitioner was asked to deposit her uniform, ID Card etc. and place claim for pension.

3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 31st July, 2013 and 23rd August, 2013, the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal under Section 62 of the Person with Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1995’) before the Commissioner, for Person with Disabilities, Disabled Welfare Commissionerate i.e. the Respondent No.7. After hearing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top