Alternate Employment not Provided

Ramesh Chander vs. R.L. Chugh, P.O, Industrial Tribunal

Filed under: Sections 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Petitioner: Ramesh Chander
Respondent: R.L. Chugh, P.O, Industrial Tribunal
Citation: 2002-III-LLJ 909
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: S.B. Sinha C.J. & A.K. Sikri

Facts

Ramesh Chander was appointed as an assistant painter in 1983.In 1990, he was examined by a psychiatrist in the ESI hospital. It was found that Ramesh Chandra was suffering from a disease called Siliz and was advised against taking on stressful duty. Thereafter, he appealed for a change in his post to a peon on the ground that he was suffering from mental stress. Bur later he withdrew the letter.

A month later, the medical board found him unfit to perform his duty as he was suffering from schizophrenia with manic depression. He was therefore, retired prematurely on medical grounds. He made an appeal to the Appellate Authority on the ground that he was found fit by a resident doctor of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The appeal was rejected.

Thereafter he filed an application under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the order. The application was also dismissed. He went on appeal against the Industrial Tribunal in the High Court.

Arguments made on behalf of Ramesh Chander

On behalf of Ramesh it was argued that in view of the persons with Disabilities Act, his services should not have been dispensed with, instead he should have been given an alternative job that suited him.

Observation by the Court

The Court observed that it was established before the Tribunal that Ramesh was suffering from schizophrenia and was unfit for holding the post. The Court held that the Tribunal had rightly rejected Ramesh's plea that he should have been given an alternate job because he was given the job of peon based on his request, which he had subsequently refused. The Court felt that Ramesh had not made any case for the Court to grant him any relief and dismissed the petition. (Refer to quotes)

Sections Referred:

• Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Quotes from the Judgment:

"The Court, in the aforesaid situation, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at by the Tribunal."

" This Court in exercise of power of judicial review can interfere with the finding of procedural Tribunal of fact only when it is found that an illegality, irrationality or judicial impropriety has been committed by the respondent in its decision making process".