Labour Law

Anand Bihari & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

AIR 1991 SC 1003; (1991) 1 SCC 731; 1991 Lab IC 494

Facts

Drivers employed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation developed defective eyesight during service.
Because of the visual impairment, they could no longer safely drive passenger buses.
The Corporation terminated or retired them on medical grounds.
The drivers argued that:
the disability was acquired during long service;
immediate loss of employment caused severe hardship;
they were capable of performing non-driving work; and
the State undertaking should rehabilitate them.
Unlike an ordinary misconduct case, the employees were not personally at fault.
The dispute required the Supreme Court to consider a fair relief even though continued driving was impossible.
The Court examined:
public safety;
the workers’ long service;
availability of alternative work; and
compensation where absorption was not possible.

An employee incapable of performing the essential safety-sensitive function cannot insist upon continuation in the same post.
Medical termination is not disciplinary punishment.
A public employer should, where reasonably possible, consider rehabilitation through suitable alternative work.
Alternative employment depends upon:
vacancy;
qualification;
physical ability;
organisational requirement; and
suitability.
Where accommodation is unavailable, fair additional compensation may be necessary because the worker loses livelihood through no misconduct.
Labour remedies should balance public safety with social justice and employment security.

The Court accepted that permitting visually impaired drivers to continue operating buses would create an unacceptable public risk.
Reinstatement as drivers was therefore impossible.
At the same time, the workers had devoted substantial years to the Corporation and lost their occupational ability during employment.
Their incapacity was not a voluntary act or misconduct.
A purely mechanical termination with ordinary dues would impose the entire burden upon the employee.
The Corporation was directed first to examine whether each person could be placed in:
clerical work;
depot assistance;
workshop or stores duties;
checking or other suitable non-driving employment.
Absorption could not be ordered into a post for which the employee lacked qualification or where no vacancy existed.
For persons who could not be accommodated, the Court devised additional financial compensation related to length of service.
The relief recognised that medical discharge in a public transport undertaking required a more humane response than ordinary contract termination.
The Court did not treat alternative employment as an unlimited legal right.
It fashioned a scheme appropriate to the particular workforce and circumstances.
The decision later influenced debate concerning protection of employees acquiring disabilities, although subsequent legislation provides stronger statutory safeguards in many cases.

The Supreme Court upheld removal from driving duties because the employees were medically unfit.
It directed consideration for suitable alternative employment.
Where such employment was unavailable, additional compensation based upon completed service was ordered.
Use this case for: medically unfit drivers cannot continue safety-sensitive work, but a public employer should pursue rehabilitation or meaningful compensation instead of simple termination.