Supreme Court of India
Anand Bihari And Ors vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 20 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1003, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 622, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1003, 1991 (1) SCC 731, 1991 AIR SCW 284, 1991 LAB. I. C. 494, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 385, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 52, (1990) 4 JT 794 (SC), 1991 SCC (L&S) 393, (1998) 3 LABLJ 1209, (1991) 16 ATC 449, (1991) 1 CIVLJ 476, (1991) 1 CURLR 525, (1991) 1 LAB LN 603, (1991) 1 SERVLR 575, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 52, (1991) 2 ACJ 848, (1991) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 3, (1991) 78 FJR 153, (1991) 62 FACLR 81, (1992) 1 ACC 496, (1992) 1 TAC 526
PETITIONER:
ANAND BIHARI AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,JAIPUR THROUGH IT
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1990
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1003 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 622
1991 SCC (1) 731 JT 1990 (4) 794
1990 SCALE (2)1286
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(00) & 25-F.
Retrenchment--State Road Transport
Corporation--Drivers--Occupational hazards Development of
defective, weak or sub-normal eye-sight in the course of
employment--Pre-mature termination of services--Held termi-
nation was not retrenchment and consequent compliance with
section 25-F not necessary--But termination held unjustified
and inequitable--Scheme formulated by the Supreme Court.for
relief to drivers--Directions for giving retirement bene-
fits, providing alternative jobs and payment of compensatory
amount proportionate to length of service rendered by the
drivers.
Retrenchment--Exceptions--Section 2(00) sub-clause
(c)--Expression "continued ill-health"--Meaning and Scope
of--Includes cases of drivers who have developed defective
or sub-normal vision during the course of employment.
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: Section
2(8)--Second Schedule--Part I--Item 4 Part II--Items 31,32
and 32A--Third Schedule--Item 11.
State Road Transport Corporation--Drivers--Development
of sub-normal eye-sight or loss of required vision during
the course of employment--Held not an "employment injury" or
"Occupational disease".
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3(2).
HEADNOTE:
The appellants (in C.A. No. 1859-61) were appointed as
drivers and had put in a long service to the satisfaction of
the respondent Corporation. Subsequently on their medical
examination it was found that they had developed defective
eye-sight i.e. they did not have the required vision for
driving the buses. The respondent Corporation issued notices
to them and after considering their explanation ter-
623
minated their services on the ground that they were unfit
for driving buses. The appellants filed Writ Petitions in
the High Court challenging their termination order contend-
ing that their termination was illegal because (i) the
termination amounted 10 retrenchment within the meaning of
section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it
was without compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act; (ii) pursuant to the agreement
between the Workers' Union and the Corporation, the respond-
ent-Corporation was bound to provide the alternative jobs to
the unfit drivers. The High Court dismissed the Writ Peti-
tions. Hence these appeals by the Workmen-drivers.
In the connected appeal (C.A. No. 1862) the driver
developed weak eye-sight on account of an accident in the
course of his employment. He was given employment as a
helper but subsequently his services as a helper were termi-
nated. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challeng-
ing his termination which was dismissed. Hence appeal by the
workmen-driver.
In the other connected appeal (C.A. No. 1863) the serv-
ices of a driver were terminated on the ground that he had
lost vision of his right eye. He fried a Writ Petition in
the High Court challenging the order of termination contend-
ing that ever since the loss of sight of his one eye, he was
working as a helper and though he was not found unfit, yet
his services were terminated. The High Court quashed his
termination order and directed the Corporation to absorb him
as a helper. Against this order of the High Court the Corpo-
ration flied an appeal before this Court.
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of
the appellants; (i) since the expression "continued iii-
health" as used in clause (c) of section 2(00) of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act, 1947 does not cover the cases of a loss
of limb or an organ or its permanent use and covers cases
only of a general physical or mental debility or incapacity
to execute the work, their termination not being covered by
the said clause amounted to retrenchment which was illegal
for non-compliance with Section 25-F; (ii) the workmen
should have been given alternative jobs irrespective of the
fact whether there was an agreement or not between the
Corporation and the Union to provide alternative jobs to
unfit drivers.
Disposing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. The expression "ill-health" used in sub-clause (c)
of
624
Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be
construed relatively and in its context. It must have a
bearing on the normal discharge of duties. It is not any
illness but that which interferes with the usual orderly
functioning of the duties of the post which would be at-
tracted by the sub-clause. Conversly, even if the illness
does not affect general health or general capacity and is
restricted only to a particular limb or organ but affects
the efficient working of the work entrusted it will be
covered by the phrase. For it is not the capacity in general
but that which is necessary to perform the duty for which
the workman is engaged which is relevant and material and
should be considered for the purpose. Therefore, any disor-
der in health which incapacitates an individual from dis-
charging the duties entrusted to him or affects his work
adversely or comes in the way of his normal and effective
functioning can be covered by the said phrase. The phrase
has also to be construed from the point of view of the
consumers of the concerned products and services. If on
account of a workman's disease or incapacity or debility in
functioning, the resultant product or the service is likely
to be affected in any way or to become a risk to the health,
life or property of the consumer, the disease or incapacity
has to be categorised as all-health for the purpose of the
sub-clause, otherwise, the purpose of production for which
the services of the workman are engaged will be frustrated
and worse still in cases such as the present one they will
endanger the lives and the property of the consumers, Hence
the Court should place a realistic and not a technical or
pedantic meaning on the said phrase. Therefore, the said
phrase would include cases of drivers such as the present
ones who have developed a defective or sub-normal vision or
eye-sight which is bound to interfere with their normal
working as drivers. Accordingly the termination of the
services of the drivers in the present case being covered by
sub-clause (c) of Section 2(00) would not amount to re-
trenchment within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Act.
Hence the termination per se is not illegal because the
provisions of Section 25-F have not been followed while
effecting it. [63 ID-H, 632A-D]
Workmen of the Bangalore Woolien, Cotton and Silk Mills
Ltd. v. Its Management, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 213, referred to.
New Coilings Concise English Dictionary; Webster's
Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition),' Concise
Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edition); and Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, referred to.
2. It is also clear from the provisions of the Employees
State Insurance Act that the cases of sub-normal eye-sight
or loss of the
625
required vision to work as a driver would not be covered by
the provisions of that Act as an employment injury or as an
occupational disease, for no provision is made there for
compensation for a disability to carry on a particular job.
The present workmen cannot be said to have suffered either a
permanent, total or partial disablement to carry on any job
or to have developed cataract due to infra-red radiations.
The workmen are and will be able to do any work other than
that of a driver with the eye-sight they possess. [635E-F]
3. There is no dispute that the drivers developed a weak
or subnormal eye-sight or lost their required vision on
account of their occupation as drivers in the Corporation.
They have to drive the heavy motor vehicles in sun-rain,
dust and dark hours of night. In the process they are ex-
posed' to the glaring and blazing sun light and beaming and
blinding lights of the vehicles coming from the opposite
direction. They are required to strain their eye-sight every
moment of the driving, keeping a watchful eye on the road
for the bumps, bends and slopes, and to avoid all kinds of
obstacles on the way. It is this constant training of eyes
on the road which takes its inevitable toil of the vision.
The very fact that in a short period, the Corporation had to
terminate the services of no less than 30 drivers shows the
extent of the occupational hazard to which the drivers of
the Corporation are exposed during their service. It also
shows that weakening of the eye-sight is not an isolated
phenomenon but a wide-spread risk to which those who take
the employment of a driver expose themselves. Yet the Corpo-
ration treats their cases in the same manner and fashion as
it treats the cases of other workmen who on account of
reasons not connected with the employment suffer from ill-
health or continued ill-health. That by itself is discrimi-
natory against the drivers. The discrimination against the
employees such as the drivers in the present case, also
ensues from the fact that whereas they have to face pre-
mature termination of service on account of disabilities
contracted from their jobs, the other employees continue to
serve till the date of their superannuation. There is no
justification in treating the cases of workmen like drivers
who are exposed to occupational diseases and disabilities on
par with the other employees. The injustice, inequity and
discrimination is writ large in such cases and is indefensi-
ble. [632F-H, 633A-D]
4. The workmen are not denizens of an Animal Farm to be
eliminated ruthlessly the moment they become useless to the
establishment. They have not only to live for the rest of
their life but also to maintain the members of their family
and other dependants, and to educate and bring up their
children. Their liability in this respect at the
626
advanced age at which they are thus retired stands multi-
plied, They may no longer be of use to the Corporation for
the job for which they were employed, but the need of their
patronage to others intensifies with the growth in their
family responsibilities. [634H, 635A-B]
5. No special provision is made and no compensatory
relief is provided in the service condition for the drivers
for pre-mature incapacitation. The service conditions of the
workmen such as the drivers in the present case, therefore,
must provide for adequate safeguards to remedy the situation
by compensating them is some form for the all-round loss
they suffer for no fault of theirs. [633C-D]
5.1. In view of the fact that the Corporation took an
unhelpful stand in the matter of formulating a scheme of
relief which is the legitimate due of the workmen and not a
scheme on compassionate or charitable basis, the Supreme
Court itself evolved a scheme for giving relief to the
workmen-drivers keeping in view the points (i) that the
workmen concerned are incapacitated to work only as drivers
and are not rendered incapable of taking any other job
either in the Corporation or outside; (ii) that the workmen
are at an advanced age of their life and it would be diffi-
cult for them to get a suitable alternative employment
outside; (iii) and that the relief made available under the
scheme should not be such as would induce the workmen to
feign disability which, in the case of disability such as
the present one, viz., the development of a defective eye-
sight, it may be easy to do, Accordingly, the Supreme Court
directed that the Corporation shall in addition to giving
each of the retired workmen his retirement benefits, offer
him any other alternative job which may be available and
which he is eligible to perform and in case no such alterna-
tive job is available each of the workman shall be paid
along with his retirement benefits an additional compensato-
ry amount proportionate to the length of service rendered by
the employees and the balance of their service. [634G, 635H,
636A-G]
6. The termination of services of helper (in C.A.No.
1862) was unjustified and also illegal being in contraven-
tion of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The High
Court erred in treating his case on par with cases of other
drivers. The appellant-workman will, therefore, be entitled
to his retirement benefits as a driver from the date of his
employment as a helper. He would further be entitled to be
reinstated in service as a helper with all arrears of back
wages as a helper. In case he opts for receiving the compen-
satory amount under the scheme framed by this Court, he may
do so for the period beginning from the date from which his
services as a helper were terminated. [637D-F]
627
7. The decision of the High Court impugned in C.A. No.
1863 is set aside and the respondent-Corporation is directed
to give the concerned workman the benefit of the scheme
propounded.
JUDGMENT:
