Madras High Court reinstates conductor citing section 47 of Disabilities Act

Dear Colleagues,

It is little surprising that the corporations, government departments continue to disregard Section 47 of Indian Persons with Disabilities Act  1995 that provides as under:


"47. (1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. 

Provided 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. 

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. 
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: 
Provided 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. "

Despite the clear cut provisions in the Act, Ravichandran, a conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation was declared medically unfit to continue in service by a medical board in 2004 and removed from service, though with an assurance of an alternate employment which was refused later.

The Court reinstated the conductor with back wages from the date of his termination citing Section 47 ibid.

Here is the news coverage.



Conductor sacked over disability, gets back job
TNN | Jan 23, 2013, 06.24 AM IST

CHENNAI: About nine years after a government bus conductor was removed from service on the ground of an unidentified 'disability', the Madras HC has ordered his immediate reinstatement with all salary arrears and service seniority.

Justice D Hariparanthaman, ruling on a petition filed by T M Ravichandran, said: "Any employee who acquires disability during his service is given protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. There is a mandate under the Act that no establishment shall dispense with a staff who acquires a disability during service."

Ravichandran, a conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, was found 'medically unfit' to continue in service by a medical board of the Government General Hospital in Chennai on February 2, 2004. He was removed from service on August 16, 2004, with an assurance that he would be given an alternate employment based on the seniority list. On December 26, 2011, however, the corporation rejected his request for reinstatement, stating that no other suitable post was available.

Rejecting the transport authorities' stand, Justice Hariparanthaman said Section 47 contemplated that if there is no suitable post is available, the person should be kept on a supernumerary post till a vacancy arises or till his superannuation. "There cannot be any gap between the disqualification of an employee due to acquiring disability and adjustment in a suitable post," he said, setting aside the dismissal order. The judge then asked the authorities to reinstate Ravichandran in service within two weeks along with back wages from the date of his termination.

Non discrimination, UN CRPD and Disabled Soldiers in India

Dear Friends,

The two most enabling sections of the The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 i.e. section 33 (Employment Chapter) and section 47 (Non Discrimination Chapter) have been made redundant by their disabling proviso which I call as Black proviso i.e.  "Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

This black provisio continues in the new draft Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2012  ready to be tabled in the parliament in different sections. The biggest victim of this proviso under Section 47,  have been those brave citizen of this vast nation who risked their lives to preserve the integrity of their motherland while being in defense forces, para-military forces & police departments and acquired disabilities - both minor or severe. The effect of this black proviso has been catastrophic on the morale of those who are out there on the borders to defend the nation or stationed in troubled areas to control the  law and order and save the democracies.

What will happen to me and my family if I become disabled during the course of duty or during my job? Am I being treated like my civilian counter parts when it comes to the social protection or non-discrimination? .... such questions plague the psyche of the ordinary officers of our forces - thanks to the black proviso and the subsequent notification by the Govt. of India under the said proviso declaring the defense forces to be kept out of the ambit of the protections available under this section.

Civilian Employees Versus Combatant Employees

Lets understand how the two employees - one civilian and one from the forces is treated under section 47 of the disabilities Act:

The section mandates as below:

"47. Non-discrimination in Government Employment - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided 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:

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.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided 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.  (most misused proviso)

Now if it was a civilian employee under the government, on acquiring a disability due to any reason, his pay scale and service benefits remain protected even if the disability sustained limits the functional capacities of the person to an extent that he/she can not be adjusted against any existing post. Such a person remains on a supernumerary post until a post is found out or till he attains age of superannuation.

On the contrary, an employee from the forces, on acquiring a disability - whether during the course of duty or during any mishap when not on duty is invariably  medically  boarded out with a paltry disability pension and left to fend for himself in the grim employment scenario. The family members and dependents suffer due to sudden calamity and the person becomes a liability for the family in absence of strong social security provisions. 

Why the talented youth is not attracted to Forces any more

Given an option, any talented young person would prefer a civil employment to an employment in the forces since the forces have not thought to respect for the sacrifices or say the human rights, social security and non-discrimination clauses of the central laws and international human right conventions. The youth of today knows there is no future in the forces. Worst - in case of a mishap - death or disability is inevitable. And both  will take away the bread winner of the family with no social protections.

Need to think out of box in light of UN CRPD

We as a nation has to think what we offer to our sons and daughters  who risk their lives for the country in comparison to a civilian on duty. Also we have to walk the talk since India is among first few handful countries  who signed the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the very first day of its opening for signature and subsequently ratified the same. However, we continue to discriminate on the basis of disability when it comes to government employment in forces.

The UN Convention defines "Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;

Some possibilities worth considering

Not all jobs in the forces are of combatant nature and many involve desk jobs such administration, logistics, equipment, stores, purchase and several others. This means that the exemption given under the garb of black proviso, can be easily withdrawn and combatants acquiring disabilities can be adjusted in non-combatant jobs/branches. 

If the Government feels that it may compromise with the war preparedness of the forces, it may also consider keeping all such severely disabled combatant employees on supernumerary posts with full pay scale and other benefits. While those who are with disabilities that allow sufficient functional abilities to be gainfully occupied in the desk operations, should be accommodated in the base units/formations.

This can help fill up the huge shortfall in the forces by motivating the youth and assuring them that they would not be discriminated if they become disabled while in service- whether the injury was or not attributable to service.

This would ensure that our forces do not discriminate on the basis of disability and are in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There have been several examples in the defence forces where combatants who acquired disability during action were retained and such a trend is very good, however, one should not be forced to go to Armed Forces Tribunal each time to obtain right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law (Art 14 of the Constitution) and Article 5 (equality and non-discrimination) of the UNCRPD.

We don't need to wait for the new draft law to come in to being to enforce this and it can be simply done by withdrawing the "Black Proviso" and the Notification of Exemption accordingly encapsulating the above.

Nagpur University challenged for discriminating against Persons with Disabilities

Dear Colleagues,

My dear friend Rajesh Asudani who works with Reserve Bank of India has moved Mumbai High Court (Nagpur Bench) against Nagpur University's open discrimination against persons with disabilities by earmarking only four posts for PH Persons that too making it "subject to availability". That indicates their intention to keep the posts unfilled and then lapse them in favour of general categories on the pretext that suitable candidates were not available! This has become the modus operandi of several Government departments which needs to change.

Here is the coverage in Times of India, Nagpur:

HC stays Nagpur University hiring over blind man's plea 


NAGPUR: A blind man has moved the high court here alleging flouting of rules by Nagpur University in appointment of lecturers. A division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice Prasanna Varale, on Wednesday, stayed the entire recruitment process of the university. The court also issued notices to the respondents including UGC chairman Ved Prakash, NU vice-chancellor Vilas Sapkal and state secretary for higher and technical education, directing them to file reply within two weeks.

Rajesh Asudani (35), a meritorious candidate who aspired to be a lecturer, had argued in-person during first hearing but taking into consideration his blindness, the court appointed Ashutosh Dharmadhikari as amicus curiae to plead his case. He claimed that NU violated Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995, in its advertisements for recruitment of professors, associate and assistant professors. He said these advertisements provided reservation for the disabled but "subject to availability" and stated that preference would be given to physically handicapped. He added that advertisements failed to specify the exact nature of disability and were against various circulars issued by UGC, Government of Maharashtra, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and also against the settled laws established by judgments of Supreme Court and various high courts.

Asudani, working with RBI as Class-I officer, pointed out that NU had issued advertisements for lecturers' recruitment three times in five years - on July 13, 2007, March 26, 2008 and August 30, 2011. The petitioner contended that reservation of posts for disabled persons under Sections 32 and 33 were binding on all the establishments but NU disregarded them in letter and spirit while reserving only four posts for physically handicapped persons, that too making it "subject to availability". He took strong objection to this rider terming it as patently illegal and militating against the letter and spirit of law.

Asudani argued that same rider had not been placed for filling up posts for SC/ST candidates, even though some posts have been advertised numerous times. He cited examples of head of NU post graduate law department Shirish Deshpande and retired sociology lecturer Prof Lakshman Khapekar who earned distinction for their unmatched academic success despite blindness from this very university. He prayed for cancelling the advertisements and directives to NU to come up with new one with proper reservations for disabled.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/HC-stays-Nagpur-University-hiring-over-blind-mans-plea/articleshow/12270803.cms

Adjustment of compassionate appointment against disability quota

Dear Colleagues,

I hope you have heard of this case being represented by my colleague Jayshree Satpute on behalf of the victim. For the information of those who are new to this case one Ms. Mahjabi, a journalism student from Dehradun, was in Delhi on vacation and was at the Rajiv Chowk Metro station with her mother. On the fateful day of March 26 last year, as a train was entering the overcrowded platform, Mehjabi was pushed on to the tracks as commuters jostled to get ahead. She was about to complete her journalism course and was close to landing a job with a news agency.

The court in the instant case has suggested that the  DMRC should also consider the feasibility of grant of preference to the disabled, who have suffered their disability either in the course of the construction work for Delhi Metro, or while using the services, within the three per cent reservation granted to the disabled persons.

I am in perfect agreement with the suggestion that the DMRC as a model employer should consider preference to such disabled persons who have acquired their disability either in the course of the construction work for Delhi Metro or while using its services as a commuter. However, it should be done under some separate scheme on Compassionate Grounds appointments. 

I am strongly against any move to adjust such seats in the three percent reservation quota available to persons with disabilities under the Persons with Disability Act 1995. Such a move would further shrink the number of jobs available in Delhi Metro to the persons with disabilities. Already, the tendency of the Government bodies/public authorities is to read the minimum 3% reservation as "Maximum 3% reservation" which is doing more harm than good to the job prospects of the potential employees with disabilities. The tendency is to adjust even those who get selected on their own merit without using any relaxed standards though is strictly against the settled norms and the policy!

Therefore, I reiterate that rather than adjusting persons acquiring a disability as a result of metro construction work or while using metro services, it would be worthwhile to consider them under a special scheme of "Compassionate Grounds appointments" and not under the regular reservation quota of minimum 3% reservation. For the mandate of the Disabilities Act is loud and clear that it is minimum 3% and not maximum and any disability which is acquired due to in-actions or actions of DMRC can not be adjusted in the present quota.  Similarly the protected disabled employees under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act can not be adjusted in to the 3% quota when they are retained after acquiring a disability. Though they may become a part of this 3% in future promotions or recruitment.

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth, 

Advocate- Disability Rights

Here is the news report from Indian Express:

Frame policy to employ Metro accident victims: HC to DMRC

New Delhi

The Delhi High Court has asked DMRC to consider framing a policy to ensure employment for commuters or employees who lose their limbs while using the facility or during work.

The court observation came during a hearing of a petition filed by 23-year-old journalism student, Mehjabi, who had lost both her legs in an accident at Rajiv Chowk Metro station last year. She has been fighting a case demanding compensation or a job with DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation).

Justice Vipin Sanghi has sought an affidavit from the DMRC after observing that the Metro, as a model employer and a service-provider, should look into the aspects of providing a job to accident victims.

The judge said any accident during construction work, or while using Metro train services, severely diminished the quality of life of an individual and hence, the DMRC should consider framing a preferential policy.

As the first affidavit submitted by the DMRC in response to Mehjabi’s petition did not specifically deal with the aspect of the reservation for the physically challenged, Justice Sanghi asked the Delhi Metro to file an additional affidavit, placing on record the policy for grant of reservation to the disabled.

“The DMRC should also consider the feasibility of grant of preference to the disabled, who have suffered their disability either in the course of the construction work for Delhi Metro, or while using the services, within the three per cent reservation granted to the disabled persons,” said the court.

During the hearing, Mehjabi’s counsel Jayshree Satpute told the court that her artificial limbs also required servicing, and hence, the Metro should be asked to bear the expenditure.

Acceding to the request, Justice Sanghi asked the DMRC, which had borne the expenses for procuring the artificial limbs for Mehjabi, to also meet the costs of the first servicing of the artificial limb.

Mehjabi was pursuing a journalism course in her hometown Dehradun, and was close to landing a job with a news agency when she met with the accident on March 26 last year. She was in Delhi on vacation and was at the Rajiv Chowk Metro station with her mother. As a train was entering the overcrowded platform, Mehjabi was pushed on to the tracks as commuters jostled to get ahead.

Hi,


First of its kind judgement from a High Court in recent times where the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 have benefited an employee acquiring a mental illness, while in service!  Congratulations to High Court of Madras (read Justice K Chandru) on this progressive judgement, Mr. Narayanan the employee, the disability sector and not to forget the advocate who presented the case!. 


Here are the links to the case details:

Mental illness can be included under ‘disability'

B. Kolappan

Court directs State department to pay full salary to employee who was relieved from service

Says termination of his services clearly in contravention of Section 47 of the PWD Act

CHENNAI: Mental illness or retardation can be brought within the term ‘disability' under sections of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 (PWD Act), the Madras High Court has said.

Directing a State government department to pay full salary, including annual increment and other monetary and service benefits, to an employee who was relieved from service on the ground of mental disability, Justice K. Chandru said the benefits should be given from the date of disability till the date of his retirement.

Allowing a petition filed by C. Narayanan, who worked as Assistant in the government Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Justice Chandru also said that the order of the Director of Employment and Training terminating Mr. Narayanan's services was “clearly in contravention” of Section 47 of the PWD Act. Section 47 clearly indicates “no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service.”

“It is ironical that the respondents belonged to the Department of Employment and Training. They are expected to advise other departments about the rights of employees in such departments. If the Department of Employment itself is not aware of the provisions of the Act, that really is a sorry state of affairs,” the Judge said.

The authorities' action had betrayed their ignorance of the PWD Act, he said and directed them to pay case cost of Rs.5,000 to Mr. Narayanan for having made him run from court to court against the dismissal.

Mental illness can be included under ‘disability'  

Read more at :  

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/28/stories/2010122861840100.htm

Mental disability no ground to sack employees: HC


Read more: Mental disability no ground to sack employees: HC - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mental-disability-no-ground-to-sack-employees-HC/articleshow/7175522.cms#ixzz19V1cigTe

Disabled Candidates are at par with SC/ST candidates

Dear Friends,

I had the opportunity to read the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 1352/2008  WP(C) 8750/2009 titled Md. Shah Afzal Vs. Medical Council of India and Anr. delivered on 06.07.2010. I am a little surprised by this move of the High Court in refusing to accept the petitioner's contention that the physically disabled candidates should be treated at par with the SC/ST candidates and merely advising the Government of India to consider the recommendations of Chief Commissioner for Disabilities who had directed all government-aided institutions to extend the relaxation in qualifying marks to physically disabled candidates in order to bring them at par with SC/ST candidates.  

The court in its concluding para said "Although we feel that physically disabled persons should be extended all the rights, privileges and benefits under the said Act so as to ensure that they are not discriminated against and that they come within the social mainstream, we do not agree with the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, as of right, can claim parity with SC/ST candidates insofar as the relaxation in the minimum marks required is concerned." 

The court concluded that insofar as physically disabled persons are concerned, they have a right to reservation but there is no right to relaxation or a concession in the minimum standards. 

In my considered view the stand of Medical Council of India that  physically disabled candidates cannot claim parity with SC/ST candidates as the two stand on entirely different footings is utterly flawed so is the conclusion of the Hon'ble Court. 

Argument -1

In the instant case the Hon'ble Court should have looked at the objective of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and should have seen the DoPT Memorandum dated 29 December 2005,. Para No. 22 of the said notification does talk about relaxation of standards of suitability which is often given to the SC/ST categories also. Here is the exercpt:

"22. RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY: If sufficient number of persons with disabilities are not available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them, candidates belonging to this category may be selected on relaxed standard to fill up the remaining vacancies reserved for them provided they are not found unfit for such post or posts. Thus, to the extent the number of vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities cannot be filled on the basis of general standards, candidates belonging to this category may be taken by relaxing the standards to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the fitness of these candidates for appointment to the post / posts in question."

Therefore, taking an analogy from the relaxation given here for employment, similar relaxation can easily be given to accommodate candidates with disabilities in the professional education too! 

Argument-2

Also the direction of the Chief Commissioner disabilities who is considered to be a Specialized Court on the law relating to disability, should have been given due importance for the decision of the CCPD was based of the very objective of the Disabilities Act and stand taken by the Government of India vis-a-vis parity between the disabled candidates and those belonging to SC/ST. Both categories have suffered marginalization due to lack of equitable opportunities due to social and environmental barriers and hence were considered for positive discrimination set out in the Indian Constitution by way of reservation despite Right to Equality.

Additionally it is the confirmed policy stand of the Govt. of India that relaxation in standards should be favoured when candidates belonging to reserved categories are not available on the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them. And there is no ambiguity that Persons with Disabilities are in reserved categories.

Argument-3

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115/1998 titled All India Confederation of the Blind Versus Union of India and Others on 22.03.2002 had upheld the stand taken by the Chief Commissioner-Disabilities and Govt. of India that by extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled at par with SC /ST, would bring parity amongst all persons with disabilities irrespective of their vertical categories. (Click here to read the Supreme Court Order on the IA no 4.)

Lessons from the Case

Therefore, in all probabilities, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the instant matter has erroneously ordered against the settled principals and the explanation as above. I feel the Counsels should do their homework while taking up matters of such public importance. Had the court been appraised of the above settled principal of Govt. of India and the existing order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this injustice to the petitioner could have been avoided. Worst is even the Representative of Chief Commissioner-Disability did not point out to the settled and accepted principal in an earlier case before the Supreme Court. I am not aware whether the petitioner had wherewithal to pursue the matter at Supreme Court level and eventually this erroneous judgment finality.

Need of Amendments in the Constitution of India to include Disability

The Honb'e Judge points out in the order "The fact that the physically disabled fall in a different class to the candidates belonging to the SC/ST category, in itself, implies that they could be treated differently just as candidates belonging to the general category are, indeed, treated differently from those belonging to the SC/ST category. The second answer is that what has been given to the SC/ST candidates is a concession. The petitioner, belonging to a physically disabled category, cannot claim such a concession as a right. "

This also indicates that the disability community needs to advocate for an amendment in Article 15(1), 15(2) and in 16(2) the Constitution of India so that discrimination on the basis of disability is checked and also Disability as a category is taken at par along with SC/ST categories.

Article 15(1)) be amended as:

“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, disabilities (be added) or any of them

Article 15(2) be amended as:

No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, disabilities (be added) or any of them, be subject to any disability (be deleted), liability, restriction or condition with regard to…”

Article 16(2) be amended as: 

 “No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, disabilities (be added) or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State”

This would give a great boost to the moral of persons with disabilities and so to their rights in India and give them parity with other reserved categories under Constitution of India. 

regards

SC Vashishth

Advocate-Disability Rights

+91-9811125521

HC: Cannot allow disabled candidates same score concession as SC/ST students

Indian Express; Utkarsh Anand

In what might be a setback to thousands of physically challenged candidates looking to make careers in medicine, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled that they cannot be given concession in qualifying marks similar to that of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) candidates for admissions in MBBS courses in the Capital.

Dismissing a couple of writ petitions filed by a candidate with over 60 per cent locomotive disability, a Division Bench of Justices B D Ahmed and Veena Birbal held that while disabled candidates already had a right of reservation in educational institutions, they could not be given the right to avail concession in the minimum standards prescribed by the Medical Council of India (MCI).

The court noted that though several seats were going waste despite the 3 per cent reservation for the physically challenged due to the candidates’ failure in securing the required 50 (now 45) per cent marks in the qualifying exams, it would rather stick to the legal dimensions of the case.

“For the present, it is sufficient for us to observe that insofar as physically disabled persons are concerned, they have a right to reservation, but there is no right to relaxation or a concession in the minimum standards. And unless and until such a right is established, no mandamus or writ can be issued to any authority to give them the relaxation or concession,” the Bench held.

The writ was filed by Md Shah Afzal, who was denied admission in a Delhi University (DU) college for the MBBS course for failing to get 50 per cent marks in the the Delhi University Medical Entrance Test (DUMET) in 2008 and 2009. He contended before the authorities that the concession given to SC/ST candidates — they need to secure 40 per cent marks to qualify — should also be given to physical disabled candidates.

Afzal subsequently approached the Chief Commissioner under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. The Commissioner then directed DU and the MCI to extend the relaxation to physically challenged candidates as well.

Afzal then approached the High Court and said the MCI had refused to obey the Commissioner’s directive even though the colleges failed to fill up the seats reserved for the physically challenged. Afzal further contended that other reputed institutions like the AIIMS and the IITs had gone ahead to provide disabled candidates the same concession for admission as given to SC/ST candidates.

The MCI also approached the court, saying the Commissioner had overstepped his jurisdiction by issuing directives to them.The Bench then adjudicated the Commissioner’s order and the writ petitions on the basis of legal criteria and dismissed Afzal’s plea. “Although we feel that physically disabled persons should be extended all rights, privileges and benefits under the said Act..., we do not agree that the petitioner, as of right, can claim parity with SC/ST candidates insofar as a relaxation in the minimum marks is concerned,” it held.

The court also set aside the Commissioner’s order, noting that his role was only recommendatory in nature and could not be binding upon the MCI. The Bench, however, asked the MCI and the Centre to give a “serious view” to whether disabled candidates could be allowed the same relaxation in marks as SC/ST candidates.

Private Organisations not bound by Disability Act: Says Supreme Court

Dear Friends,

This post is with respect to a recent judgement by Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Civil Appeal No. 1886/2007 titled Dalco Engineering Private Ltd. Vs. Shree Satish Prabhakar Padhye and Ors with another Civil Appeal No. 1858/2007 titled Fancy Rehabilitation Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

The employee Mr. Padhye acquired hearing impairment during the period of service and was terminated by the employer. Employee got a favourable suggestion from Disability Commissioner Pune for his re-instatement under Section 47 of Disabilty Act which says:

“47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.—(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided 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:

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.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided 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.”

The word "Establishment" has been defined by Section 2( k)( i) of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 defines the word "Establishment as :-

"Establishment" means a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of 'the Companies Act, 1956 and includes Departments of a Government;

On a simple reading of the definition of the word "establishment", it is clear that any organisation established under a central, provincial or state act will be an establishment. Thus any organisation registered and established under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or the Indian Trust Act or The Companies Act should ordinarily get covered under this.

However over insistence here on the Government share/ownership or control indicates that the intention of creators of this statute was to only include organisations which are largely government or local authorities created under central or state statutes or has a government stake of 51% (read section 617 of Companies Act which has been specifically referred to indicate that this has to be read in exclusion of the Companies Act). Also the heading of Section 47 of Disability Act is "Non-discrimination in Government Employment" which clarifies the intention of the legislature that it did not wanted to include private companies under the word "establishment".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that similar phrase in the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act meant "government companies".  The reason put forward by the Court is "A ‘company’ is not ‘established’ under the Companies Act. An incorporated company does not ‘owe’ its existence to the Companies Act. An incorporated company is formed by the act of any seven or more persons (or two or more persons for a private company) associated for any lawful purpose subscribing their names to a Memorandum of Association and by complying with the requirements of the Companies Act in respect of registration. Therefore, a ‘company’ is incorporated and registered under the Companies Act and not established under the Companies Act.

It further clarifies that inclusion of only a specific category of companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Govt. Companies registered under Section  617) within the definition of ‘establishment’ necessarily and impliedly excludes all other types of companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, from the definition of ‘establishment’.

A counter argument to this would be that while IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act are punitive in nature and should be interpreted in restrictive and strict sense, the Disability Act is a benevolent, socio-economic and empowering legislation and must be interpreted in a way which favours the marginalized section of the society.

However, now a decision of the learned judges of the Supreme Court is out here clarifying the meaning of word establishment, removing the clouds of doubt on the existing legislation and leaving no room for its benevolent interpretation in future. Therefore, it would be worthwhile now that the disability activists address this issue in the New Law that is being suggested and be categorical that the provisions of the disability act would apply to all establishment including those private initiatives which are registered under any of the Central or State statutes like companies, trusts, societies and cooperatives etc.

This has larger force of argument because when a labour legislation related to PF, Minimum Wage etc. is applicable to private employers with a certain number of employees then why can't disability legislation be applicable - for the objective of both legislations is to empower the weak, vulnerable and marginalized members of our society?

On second thought, it comes to my mind as to why the exploitation of an employee with disability by an employer could not be taken up through labour legislations read in conjunction with disability Act and why alone under Section 47 of the Disability Act? The last line of the judgement - "This will not come in the way of employee of any private company, who has been terminated on the ground of disability, seeking or enforcing any right available under any other statute, in accordance with the law." -  gives a hint that it could have perhaps been better fought under labour legislations. 

Here is the news report on the issue from the Mail Today.

regards

SC Vashishth

Advocate-Disability Rights

09811125521

subhashvashishth@gmail.com

SC says disability Act not binding on private firms

(To read from source in (PDF 2 MB) 

Mail Today, 01st April 2010

THE SUPREME Court on Wednesday held that a law enacted in 1995, to prevent exploitation of the disabled by their employers, could not be enforced on the private sector.

A three- judge bench, comprising justices R. V. Raveendran, R. M. Lodha and C. K. Prasad, said the Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, did not cast any obligation on private companies and schools.

The bench rejected a contention that the Act covered all companies incorporated under the Companies Act.

A private company had approached the apex court, against a high court order holding that the disabilities commissioner had jurisdiction over any company incorporated under the Companies Act. The high court had said it could direct the company to reinstate an employee who was dismissed on account of disability.

The second appeal was filed by a trust — on behalf of the employee — which had approached the apex court after the high court refused to pass any such direction to the company and admitted that the first judgment was incorrect.

Opposing the company’s appeal, the dismissed employee pointed out that section 2( k)( i) of the disability Act brought “ a corporation established by or under a central, provincial, or state Act” within its ambit.


But the apex court said a similar phrase in the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act meant government companies.

Delhi High Court issues notices to DU colleges on non implementation of PWD Act.

Notices to colleges for not adhering to disability quota



New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently issued notices to eight colleges run by the central government for not implementing the disability quota for teachers despite directions.


A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ajit Bharihoke asked the colleges to file their reply by April 16 and state why their orders were not complied with.

Bharti College and Lady Harding Medical College are two of the eight colleges that have not complied with the order.

Colin Gonsalves, counsel for NGO Sambhavana Trust, said, "There are only 39 colleges in Delhi University (DU) that have complied fully with the disability quota, 12 colleges have partially complied and 31 colleges have not complied at all."

The court was hearing a public interest petition seeking an implementation of the law on quota for disabled candidates for teaching posts.

Sambhavana Trust, a registered society of disabled persons, had alleged that the varsity and its colleges had not implemented the law even 15 years after the Parliament passed it and six years after the court's direction in this regard.

It was also submitted that the university, after enactment of the law, had passed a resolution in 1996 to provide three percent reservation for the disabled, out of which two percent was to be given to the visibly handicapped and one percent to orthopaedically handicapped. IANS (This is miquoted in the media, the correct version as 1.5% to the Visually Impaired and 1.5% to the Orthopaedically Impaired candidates)