HC orders MTC to pay mandatory benefits to re-appointed staff

Four Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) workers who were discharged from service for disability but later re-appointed at lower pay should be given their seniority, back wages and protection of pay, Madras High Court ordered today.
Justice M Venugopal, allowing the pleas of the four, said crew who suffered various disabilities in the course of their employment could not be served with any order of removal from service or reduction in rank on the grounds of disabilities. The authorities should pay all the mandatory benefits to the affected employees within two months, the judge ordered.
In their petitions, drivers V Palani, BV Lakshmanan and G Visweswaran and conductor M Elumalai contended that they were rendered medically "unfit" for their respective duties under different circumstances and the Medical Board passed relevant orders.

After being discharged from service, they were later allowed to re-join at a lower grade with much lower pay-scale than their earlier posts. Also, they were shown as fresh recruits.
Noting that they were losing several thousand rupees every month in salary, the petitioners contended that they had already lost their seniority of service along with back wages. Two of them said they had not received any salary for the period between their discharge and re-appointment.
In its counter-affidavits, MTC said all four employees had accepted the offer of lower post and pay-scale without any complaint and had done so in writing on their own volition. They had not challenged the discharge orders and hence their petitions should be dismissed.

Rejecting the contention of MTC, the judge pointed at various United Nations treaties and conventions, besides Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandates that no employer may remove workers from service or reduce rank and pay of employees who acquire disabilities.
"It is to be remembered that an employee who acquires a disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but others who are dependent on him would also suffer," the judge observed.