Skip to main content

Reinstatement of schizophrenic employee directed by SC

In a landmark ruling, a Supreme Court bench of justices CK Prasad and Jagdish Singh Khehar directed the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) to reinstate 41 year old Edward D’Cunha even though he suffers from schizophrenia, ending 13 long years of wait for justice.

While he was on his duty in Visakhapatnam in 1997, Edward got his first schizophrenic attack which was diagnosed by doctors at the SCI. This was four years after he joined the SCI as a trainee nautical officer.
The company forced him to resign after his fifth schizophrenic attack in 2000 when he asked for three months’ leave and threatened of blacklisting him if he did not. The company was taken to court by Edward’s father, Stanley.

On March 3, 2010, the SCI and the chief commissioner was criticized by the Bombay High Court for their insensitive attitude in dealing with a schizophrenic patient and gave the SCI six weeks time to reinstate Edward by offering him a suitable post in their onshore office and also asked SCI to provide him with remuneration for all the years that he was not employed. Following this order of the Bombay High Court, the SCI then approached the Supreme Court.

The special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court creating hope for other mentally ill patients. The petitioner’s counsel in the high court said the SCI was not following the Disability Act on the pretext that it does not apply to the SCI and due to lack of awareness on the part of the SCI a differently-abled person had to undergo harassment.

According to Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity and Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995, no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. If the employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he held, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. It further says that if even that is not possible, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/reinstatement-of-schizophrenic-employee-directed-by-sc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more