FINAL PROJECT OF LABOUR LEGISLATIONS
Case on industrial disputes
PETITIONER: ANAND BIHARI AND ORS.
RESPONDENT: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR THROUGH IT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/12/1990
BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
1991 AIR 1003 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 622
1991 SCC (1) 731 JT 1990 (4) 794
1990 SCALE (2)1286
Corporation--Drivers--Occupational hazards Development of defective, weak or sub-normal eye-sight in the course of employment--Pre-mature termination of services--Held termination was not retrenchment and ...view middle of the document...
e. they did not have the required vision for driving the buses. The respondent Corporation issued notices to them and after considering their explanation terminated their services on the ground that they were unfit for driving buses.
1. The appellants filed Writ Petitions in the High Court challenging their termination order contending 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 respondent-Corporation was bound to provide the alternative jobs to the unfit drivers. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence these appeals by the Workmen-drivers.
2 The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. 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 terminated. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging his termination which was dismissed. Hence appeal by the workmen-driver.
3. Hence appeal by the workmen-driver. In the other connected appeal (C.A. No. 1863) the services of a driver were terminated on the ground that he had lost vision of his right eye. He fired a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of termination contending 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.
4 Despondence appeal in Supreme Court - Against this order of the High Court the Corporation filed an appeal before this Court. In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants; (i) since the expression "continued ill- 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.
1. 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...