DALCO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD Vs. SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent - S.P. Padhye - (also referred to as 'the employee') was employed as a Telephone Operator by the appellant for more than two decades. The respondent's service was terminated by the appellant with effect from 31.12.2000 on the ground that he had become deaf (85% reduction in ability to hear). The respondent complained to the Disability Commissioner, Pune, in regard to such termination, alleging that he was fit, able and normal when he joined service of the appellant and as he acquired the hearing impairment during the period of service, he should have been continued in employment in some suitable post. The Disability Commissioner made an order dated 12.10.2001 suggesting to the employer to undertake a social responsibility, by re- employing the respondent to discharge any other work. The suggestion was not accepted by the employer.

(2.) According to the respondent, the Commissioner, instead of making a mere suggestion, ought to have issued a direction to the employer, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('the Act', for short). He therefore filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs (i) quashing of the order dated 12.10.2001; and (ii) a direction to implement the provisions of the Disabilities Act by directing the employer to reinstate him in service in a suitable post, with retrospective effect from 1.1.2001, in the same pay- SCALE and service benefits. The High Court allowed the said writ petition by judgment dated 23.12.2005, and directed the employer to reinstate the respondent and shift him to a suitable post with the same pay- SCALE and service benefits and with full back-wages. The High Court held that the respondent, though a private limited company, was an "establishment" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act and consequently Section 47 of the Act enjoined it not to dispense with the services of its employee who acquired a disability. Facts in CA No. 1858/2007:

(3.) The first Appellant is a Public Trust (for short the 'Trust') working for the benefit of the physically and mentally challenged persons, took up a house-keeping contract from the third respondent Company on 24.7.2000. The appellant employed several physically handicapped persons for executing the said contract. The third respondent terminated the appellant's contract on 18.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a complaint dated 22.7.2006 with the Disability Commissioner, Pune followed by a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the notice terminating the contract. The appellant also sought a direction for rehabilitation of the persons with disabilities who were employed by it for executing the said house-keeping contract, under the provisions of the Act. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 19.9.2006 dismissed the writ petition holding that the third respondent was not an "establishment" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, consequently, the provisions of the Act did not apply and that the Disability Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the third respondent. It also held that the earlier decision in S.P. Padhye (which is the subject matter of the first case) was per incuriam as it ignored two binding decisions of this Court - the Constitution Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 and the decision in S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, (1981) 3 SCC 431. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. Questions for decision