INTRODUCTION
There is a growing recognition that diversity and inclusivity extend beyond being the markers of progressive workplaces to being legal obligations that employers must fulfil. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPwD Act") gives this recognition by requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodation to employees to enable them to contribute effectively. This principle goes beyond mere compliance; it represents a move towards workplaces that are adaptive, inclusive, and respectful of dignity.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in CH.Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation reinforces this change by stating that employers cannot simply let go of workers who become disabled while on the job. Instead, they must actively look for alternative roles and support ongoing employment. The judgment shows that creating inclusive workplaces is now as much about following the law as it is about workplace culture and values.
FACTS AND ISSUES
The employee, CH Joseph(Appellant in the case) was working with the Respondent TSRTC as a driver from May 01, 2014. During a routine medical checkup, the Appellant was declared to be colour blind and unfit to hold the position of a driver. Accordingly, the Appellant was given early retirement. The Appellant challenged this and also made a representation that alternate positions at TSRTC be identified. The appeal and the representation were dismissed. Accordingly, the Appellant challenged the order before a single judge of the High Court and obtained a favourable order. However, this order was overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court. Thereafter, the order of the Division bench was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Out of a list of issues, the Supreme Court had to consider whether the early retirement of the Appellant on grounds of colour blindness without identifying alternate employment, was legally sound.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court set aside the retirement on the following grounds:
- The Court held that the Respondent's approach was flawed, as being unfit for one specific role does not mean an employee is unfit for all employment.
- The Respondent relied on an internal circular to deny alternate employment. The Court clarified that such circulars cannot override the law, which requires employers to consider redeployment.
- The Respondent also relied on the fact that colour blindness was not recognised as a disability under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and accordingly, the Respondent had no obligation to identify alternative employment under Section 47 of the said Act. To this, the court observed that while certain conditions, such as colour blindness may not fall under the category of disability, employers must still accommodate, where appropriate. The Court added that interpreting the obligation under Section 47 to be otherwise would result in a regressive interpretation of a beneficial legislation.
KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER FOR EMPLOYERS
While the judgement primarily focused on public employment, the wide interpretation of law could also be considered to be applicable to private employers, specifically in light of the RPwD Act, which applies to both public and private employers. Considering the same, the following points should be kept in mind:
- Internal Policies: Employers should periodically review and update their human resource manuals, service rules, and employee handbooks to ensure consistency with the RPwD Act and the broader constitutional principles of equality and dignity.
- Reasonable Accommodation: Employers must now consider reasonable accommodation as a standard compliance requirement, which means that whenever an employee acquires a disability or faces functional limitations, the employer is obliged to explore practical adjustments, such as reassignment to another role, modification of duties, or workplace adaptations, before even contemplating termination.
- Documentation: Employers must demonstrate that they have taken genuine, good-faith steps to explore redeployment before moving towards retirement or termination. This includes preparing vacancy lists, recording assessments of the employee's suitability for available roles, noting any workplace modifications considered, and documenting communications with the employee.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court's judgment confirms that an employee's disability does not end their employment. A disability cannot automatically lead to termination. Employers have a clear responsibility to look for other roles that fit the employee's abilities. They must also make reasonable accommodations, such as changing job duties, adjusting working conditions, or reassigning the employee to a different position. By taking these steps, employers safeguard not only the employee's income but also their dignity. This recognizes that the right to work is essential to equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
