SYNDICATE BANK Vs. ASSISTANT SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 16412 of 2009. In order to understand the real question of controversy, a brief note of the facts that led to the filing of the present litigation need to be mentioned. One Mr. R. Santharama Pai, a Clerk working in the Syndicate Bank met with a major road accident on 26.8.1993 which resulted in serious injuries. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with Quadriplegia on account of injuries in the road accident. The Medical Board, after examining the workman certified that he has cent percent disability. Therefore, appellant-Management decided to terminate the services of the workman after giving him necessary notice in terms of settlement, i.e., Clause 522(1) of the Sasthri Award. However, the workman represented by his wife gave several representations which were not taken into consideration. Therefore, the Union took up the issue to espouse the cause of the workman before the Central Labour Commissioner.

(2.) Incidentally, they also raised a contention that the workman could be terminated only on the date of attaining superannuation at 60 years. As conciliation proceedings failed before the Central Labour Commissioner, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court concerned. Before the Labour Court, management's stand was that termination of service of the workman in terms of Sasthri Award, especially Clause 522(1) which mandates three months notice was duly complied with and there was neither illegality in the procedure nor was there arbitrary exercise of power by the management is the contention of the appellant.

(3.) The Labour Court, after giving opportunity to both the parties, ultimately concluded that the termination of service of workman was in violation of S. 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Disabilities Act'). It is pertinent to mention that apart from adjudicating the validity of termination of service of the workman, another dispute with regard to appointment of the wife of the workman was also adjudicated by the Labour Court. So far as the second question with regard to compassionate employment to the wife of the workman during life time of employee, the Labour Court did not agree with the claim of the Union and rejected the same. Opining that the termination of service is illegal, the same being in total violation of S. 47 of the Disabilities Act, the Labour Court proceeded to direct the appellant-management to treat the workman as being in service till the date of superannuation by extending all the benefits that were payable to him if he were to be in service. There could not be any order of reinstatement as the workman superannuated in the year 2000, and the Industrial Dispute came to be disposed of on 23.5.2008.