In an order aimed at sending a message to private sector companies ignoring the rights of their disabled employees, the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), under the Union Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry, has asked a Ghaziabad-based private firm to restore the job of a worker who was terminated from the service after he met with a mishap, causing him 60 per cent locomotor disability.
The case pertains to one Tusarkanta Pattanayak, who worked with a private firm, BioMed Pvt Ltd, since 2006. On December 30, 2016, while in the office when he was not feeling well, his company manager advised him to get medicine from the nearby dispensary and take rest. But as his fate would have it, Pattanayak met with a serious accident on his way to the dispensary. It made him permanently disabled (locomotor disability at 60 per cent).
However, instead of empathising with Pattanayak’s condition, his company pressured him to quit the job. In 2019, the company handed him a termination letter, the complainant alleged in his petition before the CCPD which he had moved for justice.
The Employee State Insurance (ESI) too rejected his application seeking pension as it contended that his case does not fall within the purview of the existing rules.
Commissioner for Persons with Disability Upma Srivastava after hearing both the sides on January 12, 2021 observed that the employer of Pattanayak violated employment rights of the latter as guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
“Section 20(4) of the Act lays down that if any employee acquires disability during course of his employment, he shall not be dispensed with his services; further, such employee cannot be even reduced in rank or pay scale. Though, Section 20(4) lays down mandate for government establishments. Yet, this court, considering the objectives of RPwD Act 2016, concludes that effect of this provision must also be extended to non-government establishments. “
In her order she further said that “Objective of this Act is to assimilate the Divyangjans into main stream society so that they can spend their life with dignity and enjoy their basic fundamental rights equally with others. If private establishments shall be left out of scope of Section 20(4) it may amount to creating hinderance in path of achieving aims and objectives sought to be achieved by RPwD Act, 2016.”
Therefore, said Srivastava, this court by exercising its suo motu powers to investigate, vested in it by virtue of Section 75(b) of RPwD Act, 2016, decides to take cognisance of the complaint against the employer of the complainant, i.e.Bio-Med Private Limited and recommends it to cancel the termination letter and re-employ him on any such post which is suitable for a Divyangjan. Further this court recommends that the employer shall not reduce the pay scale of the complainant.
However, the Court was silent on the ESI contention that “after conducting detailed investigation it was found that at the time the complainant met with the accident, he was not commuting for employment purpose, rather he was commuting from one place to another for personal reasons therefore, he could not be granted pension. “
