ANAND BIHARI AND ORS versus RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 20-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ANAND BIHARI AND ORS. 
v. 
' 
RAJAS1HAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 
JAIPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 
AND ANR. ETC. 
DECEMBER 20, 1990 
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(00) &·25-F. Retrench-
ment-State Road Transport Corporation-Drivers-Occupational 
hazards-Development of defective, weak or sub-normal eye-sight in 
the course of employment-Pre-mature termination of services-Held 
termination was ·not retrenchment and consequent compliance with 
section 25-F not necessary-But termination held unjustified and 
inequitable-Scheme formulated by the Supreme Court for relief to 
drivers-Directions for giving retirement benefits, providing alternative 
D 
jobs and payment of compensatory amount proportionate to length of 
service rendered by the drivers. 
Retrenchment-Exceptions-Section 2(00) sub-clause (c)-Ex-
pression "continued ill-health"-Meaning and Scope of-Includes 
cases of drivers who have developed defective or sub-normal vision 
E 
during the course of employment. 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: Section 2(8)-Second 
Schedule-Part I-Item 4-Part II-Items 31,32 and· 32A-Third 
Schedule-item I I. 
F 
State Road Transport Corporation-Drivers-Development of 
G 
sub-normal eye-sight or loss of required vision during the course of 
employment-Held noi an "employment injury" or "Occupational 
disease". 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3(2). 
The appellants (in C.A. No. 1859-61) were appointed as drivers 
and had put in a long service to the satisfaction of the respondent-
Corporation. Subsequently on their medical examination it was found 
'~ 
that they had developed defective eye-sight i.e. they did not have the 
required vision for driving the hoses. The respondent Corporation 
H 
issned notices to them and after considering their explanation ter-
622 
ANAND v. R.S.R.T.C. 
623 
_ 
_. 
minated their services on the ground that they were unfit for driving 
buses. The appellants filed Writ Petitions in the High Court challenging 
A 
their termination order contending that their termination was illegal 
because (i) the termination amounted 1 o retrenchment within the mean-
ing of section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was 
without compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of 
·the Act; (ii) pursuant to the agreement between the Workers' Union and 
B 
the Corporation, the respondent-Corporation was bound to provide the 
alternative jobs to the unfit drivers. The High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petitions. Hence these appeals by the Workmen-drivers. 
In the connected appeal (C.A. No. 1862) the driver developed 
weak eye-sight on account of an accident in the course of bis employ-
c 
ment. He was given employment as a helper but subsequently his 
services as a helper were terminated. He filed a Writ Petition in the 
High Court challenging his termination which was dismissed. Hence 
appeal by the workmen-driver. 
In the other connected appeal (C.A. No. 1863) the services of a 
D 
driver were terminated on the ground that he bad lost vision of bis right 
eye. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of 
termination contending that ever since the loss of sight of his one eye, he 
was working as a helper and though he was not found unfit, yet bis 
services were terminated. The High Court quashed his termination 
order and directed the Corporation to absorb him as a helper. Against 
E 
this order of the High Court the Corporation filed an appeal before this 
Court. 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-
lants; (i) since the expression "continued ill-health" as used in clause 
(c) of section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not cover F 
the cases of a loss of limb or an organ or its permanent use and covers 
cases only of a general physical or mental debility or incapacity to 
execute the work, their termination not being covered by the said clause 
amounted to retrenchment which was illegal for non-compliance with 
Section 25-F; (ii) the workmen should have been given alternative jobs 
irrespective of the fact whether there was an agreement or not between G 
the Corporation and the Union to provide alternative jobs to unfit 
drivers. 
Disposing the appeals, this Court, 
'·· 
HELD: 1. The expression "ill-health" used in sub-clause (c) of H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Section 2(06) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.