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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more