Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for he post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits;

12. Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

13. Section 47(2) thereof provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.

14. Proviso to section 47(2) provides that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

15. Therefore, considering the provisions of the said Act as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that section 47 of the said Act is also applicable to the Corporation and these are the mandatory provisions enacted by the Parliament to give protection to such persons who have acquired disability, who are suffering from disability during the course of employment. I am of the opinion that the case of the workman herein is squarely covered by the provisions of section 47 of the said Act. This aspect has been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kunalsing versus Union of India and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW page 1013. Relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are relevant in the facts of the present case are reproduced as under:

"9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VII deals with an employee who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of 'disability' and 'person with disability'. It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The vry frame and contents of section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of section reads ' no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The section further provides that if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub section (2) of section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service.On construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities. protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and seres its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during the service.

18. I have also considered the contention of Mr. Trivedi that the labour court is not justified in granting 85 per cent back wages to the workman for the intervening period. The labour court has given detailed reasons for granting 85 per cent back wages for the intervening period. While considering the aspect of back wages, the labour court has kept in mind the negligence on the part of the corporation due to which initially ex parte award was made against the corporation (Exh.15) and for that, more than three years time has been consumed from 1996 to 1999 and then the matter was restored on the basis of the application submitted by the corporation. In his evidence, the workman has deposed that he remained unemployed and has not been able to get any job during the intervening period. All these facts disclosed by the workman in his statement of claim and oral evidence were considered by the labour court while considering the aspect of back wages. One more aspect is also required to be considered while considering the award of the labour court qua back wages. Admittedly, the workman herein has acquired disability in view of the attack of paralysis suffered by him and, therefore, he was unable to do the work of driving which he was doing prior to such disability and in view of that also, it was very much difficult for him to survive and maintain himself and his family. If it would have been viewed from that angle, then, the award of 85 per cent back wages could be considered to be on its lower side. However, without entering into that aspect, I am agreeing with the findings and reasoning given by the labour court for giving reinstatement on any equivalent post having light work with 85 per cent of the back wages for the intervening period with continuity of service. The Corporation has also not been able to point out that the workman has been doing any such similar work which he has been doing prior to such disability acquired by him. Therefore, considering the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and since the corporation has not been able to point out any exceptional circumstances for denying 85 per cent back wages or any part thereof to the corporation, I am of the opinion that the labour court has rightly granted the award in question with 85 per cent of the back wags for the intervening period. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue in case of Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. versus its Workmen reported in AIR 1979 SC page 75, relevant para 9 is reproduced as under: