Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4169           OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.612 of 2007)

Sohan Lal ... Appellant(s) Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

Leave granted.

2. An  award  dated  27.02.2004  passed  by  the  learned  Labour  

Court, Ambala, upholding the termination of service of the appellant  

was challenged before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High  

Court having dismissed the aforesaid challenge the present appeal  

has been filed.

3. The brief facts that would be relevant for the adjudication of  

the present case may be noticed as hereinbelow:

The appellant, Sohan Lal, was employed as a regular driver in

Page 2

the Haryana Roadways having been appointed in the said post on  

01.04.1993. According to the appellant, while in service, he sustained  

certain injuries as a result of a road accident.  A medical examination  

of the appellant was conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Yamuna Nagar  

to determine the fitness of the appellant to continue to be employed  

as  a  driver.  He  was  found  to  be  unfit  to  discharge  his  duties.  

Thereafter, a notice dated 03.03.1997 was issued to the appellant by  

the General Manager of the Haryana Roadways proposing to retire  

him from service on medical  grounds. The appellant submitted his  

reply  on  consideration  of  which,  by  order  dated  27.03.1997,  the  

appellant  was retired from service with effect  from 31.03.1997 on  

ground of medical unfitness.

4. The appellant raised an industrial dispute on the issue of his  

termination/retirement made by the order dated 27.03.1997. Though  

initially a reference was refused, the matter was  eventually referred  

to  the  Labour  Court  for  adjudication  under  Section  10  (1)  of  the  

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  

5. Both  the  parties  filed  their  respective  written  statements  

before the learned Labour Court on the basis of which issues with  

regard to the validity of the retirement/termination of the workman  

and his entitlement  to consequential benefits, if any, were framed for  

trial.

Page 3

6. Before  the  learned  Labour  Court  both  parties  led  their  

respective evidence on consideration of which the learned Court came  

to the conclusion that the claim of the workman was not tenable and  

answered the reference accordingly.  In doing so, the learned Labour  

Court  specifically  took  note  of  the  fact  that  in  the  order  dated  

27.03.1997, it is mentioned that before dispensing with the services  

of the workman, attempts were made to find an alternative job to  

accommodate  him  which  attempts,  however,   did  not  yield  any  

positive result.  The fact that the appellant was paid all retiral benefits  

as well as additional compensation calculated at the rate equivalent  

to 21 days salary for each year of the balance period of service left (7  

years), in accordance with the decision of this Court in Anand Bihari  

& Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur  

& Anr. [AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1003] was also taken note of.  With  

regard to the above,  it would be necessary to notice that following  

the aforesaid judgment of this Court, an Office Memorandum dated  

20.08.1992 was issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government  

of  Haryana,  formulating  a  ‘scheme’  to  deal  with  cases  of  medical  

incapacity of a serving incumbent to discharge his duties.  Under the  

said  scheme,  in  case  such  incapacity  is  attributable  to  reasons  

connected with the employment, alternative employment is required  

to be provided,  failing which,  additional  compensation,  at  the rate

Page 4

prescribed by the said notification for the balance period of service  

left, is payable to the concerned employee.   

7. Aggrieved  by  the  award  dated  27.02.2004  passed  by  the  

learned Labour Court,  the appellant filed a writ  petition before the  

High Court.  The same having been dismissed by the High Court by  

order dated 22.08.2005, the present appeal has been filed. The order  

of the High Court dismissing the writ petition is based on an order of  

the same date passed in another writ petition involving identical facts.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. In  Anand Bihari  (supra), this Court was confronted with the  

issue of termination of the  services of a large number of drivers in  

the  Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  on  account  of  a  

singular  medical  disability,  namely,  defective/poor  eyesight,  a  

disability attributable to the stringent nature of the  duties performed.  

On consideration of the totality of the facts of the case before it in  

Anand Bihari  (supra), this Court directed the Rajasthan State Road  

Transport Corporation to frame  a ‘scheme’ to deal with such cases.  

Specifically, it was directed that before dispensing with the services of  

an employee on medical grounds attributable to the service rendered,  

an  attempt  must  be  made  to  find  alternative  employment  to

Page 5

accommodate  the   workman/employee,  failing  which,  additional  

compensation is to be paid  for the period of service left at the rates  

indicated in the order of the Court.  

10. Following the judgment of this Court in Anand Bihari (supra),  

as already noticed, a ‘scheme’ engrafting the essential  parameters  

prescribed by this Court had been brought into force in the State of  

Haryana by Memorandum dated 20.08.1992.  The said scheme, as  

applicable  to  the  State  of  Haryana,   creates  an  obligation  on  the  

employer  (Haryana  Roadways)  to  find  suitable  alternative  

employment  for  an  employee  proposed  to  be  discharged  on  the  

ground of  medical disability if such disability is attributable to the  

service rendered.  The norms contained in the aforesaid Memorandum  

dated 20.08.1992 also obligates the employer to make  alternative  

employment available upto one year from the date of cessation of  

service.  If  such  alternative  employment  cannot  be  provided,  

compensation at the rate prescribed in the said Memorandum dated  

20.08.1992 is required to be paid to the concerned employee.  In the  

present case, the order dated 27.03.1997 by which the service of the  

appellant  has  been  dispensed  with  recites  that  no  alternative  

employment was available  under the General Manager of Haryana  

Roadways  commensurate  with  the  qualifications  and  skills  of  the  

appellant.  The appellant  could not also be appointed in the workshop  

as he did not have any technical qualification.  In the said order it has

Page 6

also been recited that additional compensation, as prescribed by the  

Memorandum dated 20.08.1992,  has  been calculated and is  being  

paid to the appellant.  There is no dispute that such compensation has  

since been paid.

11. The applicability of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons  

with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection of  Rights  And Full  

Participation) Act, 1995 to the case of the appellant, as strenuously  

urged on his behalf, cannot arise in  as much as the appellant does  

not  come  within  the  meaning  of  the  expression  “person  with  

disability” as defined  under Section 2(t) of the Act. In the medical  

certificate  dated  14.11.1996  issued  by  the  Civil  Surgeon,  Yamuna  

Nagar the appellant has been found to be suffering from disability of  

the right elbow to the extent of 10% only as against the percentage of  

not less than 40% spelt out by Section 2(t) of the Act.

12. The  facts  of  the  present  case  clearly  go  to  show  that  the  

appellant was found to be medically unfit to continue to work as a  

driver.  His  case  for  alternative  employment  in  terms  of  the  

Memorandum  dated  20.08.1992  was  duly  considered.   No  such  

alternative  employment  was   available.   Consequently,  additional  

compensation payable to the appellant in terms of the Memorandum  

dated 20.08.1992 was calculated and paid.  The materials on record  

would also go to show that the superannuation of the appellant, if he

Page 7

had continued in service, was due on 30.09.2004. Taking into account  

the totality of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that  

the award of the learned Labour Court dated 27.02.2004 affirmed by  

the High Court  by its  order  dated 22.08.2005 will  not  require  any  

interference by us. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the  

aforesaid award dated 27.02.2004 of the learned Labour Court and  

order dated 22.08.2005 passed by the High Court.

...…………………………J. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........……………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi, May 1, 2013.

Page 8

    NON-REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVILL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4169 OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.612 of 2007)

 Sohan Lal                    .......Appellant    

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.                        ......Respondents

O R D E R

Having  taken  of  the  matter  suo  moto  today,  we  

substitute paragraph 11 of the judgment delivered on  May 01,  

2013 in this matter by the following paragraph:

"In so far as the provision of Section 47 of the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995  are  concerned,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  appellant  having  retired  in  the  meantime  the  said  provisions of the Act will have no application.  As  the  appellant  has  already  been  granted  additional  compensation under the scheme in force, we do not  consider it appropriate to examine the entitlement of  the appellant to any further benefits under the Act."

                          .....................J.  

       (P.SATHASIVAM )                              

                   ....................J.             (RANJAN GOGOI )

NEW DELHI; MAY 06, 2013.

Page 9