Trace Your Case

ANAND BIHARI AND OTHERS V. RSRTC AND ANR.

Anand Bihari and others v. RSRTC and another 1991 Lab IC 494

ISSUE:

  • Whether the termination of the driver’s services amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
  • Whether the termination was in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act?

RULE:

  • Even if an illness does not affect general health or capacity but hampers the efficient working of the assigned duties, it falls under the purview of “ill health.”

FACTS:

  • Drivers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation developed sub-normal or defective eyesight due to prolonged exposure to harsh driving conditions, including bright sunlight and blinding vehicle lights.
  • Upon being found medically unfit to drive, their services were terminated.
  • The drivers challenged this termination, arguing that it amounted to retrenchment without compliance with Section 25-F and that they should have been provided alternative employment.

HELD:

  • The court held that the termination of services due to defective eyesight falls under “ill-health” and, therefore, does not amount to retrenchment. Hence, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 do not apply.
  • The court found the termination unjustified due to the occupational hazards involved. It directed the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to offer alternative jobs to the affected drivers where possible or provide them with compensation proportional to their length of service if no alternative jobs were available.
  • The court also ruled that the termination of a driver who had been reassigned as a helper was unjustified and illegal, entitling him to reinstatement and back wages.