Not Providing Alternative Light Work To Employee Who Is Unable To Perform Heavy Work Due To Occupational Disability Is Unfair Legal Practice: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that the reluctance of the employer to provide its employee with an alternative light work when he is unable to perform the heavy work due to occupational disability suffered by him is an act of unfair legal practice.
The Court held thus in a writ petition filed by a private company under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Industrial Court, Satara.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav said, “The above findings arrived at by the learned Industrial Court cannot be faulted with nor do they call for any interference as it is proven on record that the original Respondent suffered and sustained an occupational disability reducing his capacity to work and reluctance of the Petitioner Company to provide him with alternative light work when he was admittedly unable to perform the heavy work was an act of unfair legal practice which was contrary to the Medical certificates / medical advice given to the original Respondent.”
The Bench also held that an act of the company to deduct the wages unauthorizedly without following the statutory provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is an act of unfair labour practice.
Advocate Nitin A. Kulkarni appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Kishor Ajetrao appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner company had a factory in Satara and the respondent i.e., deceased worker (represented by his legal heirs) was appointed as a helper in its Moulding Department. His work included physical transfer of moulded iron i.e., hot liquid in kettle weighing 5 kgs and pouring the same into moulds which were kept at some distance from the furnace and hence, it was categorized as ‘heavy work’. One day the deceased worker collapsed due to blood pressure while on duty and was admitted to the hospital. He recovered and rejoined duty after about 3-4 months and requested the company to give him light work in view of his health condition to which the company agreed and gave light job.
After almost a year, he suffered a burn injury to his leg while on duty. After recovering and while resuming duty, he submitted medical certificate recommending that he should be provided with light work being suffered from permanent locomotive disability. However, the company refused to do the same and thereafter, several show-cause notices were issued to him. The company also deducted the wages of Rs. 16,404/- from his salary and the matter went to the Industrial Court. The said court directed the company to give light work or any suitable post, aggrieved by which the company approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “A sequitur of this decision is that no deduction of wages can be made without holding an inquiry or at least some kind of investigation. That apart, the learned Industrial Court also referred to and relied upon the following decisions in support of the proposition that deduction of wages of the original Respondent when the original Respondent was ready to perform alternative work which the Petitioner Company was under an obligation to provide to him was completely illegal”
The Court noted that the deceased worker would be entitled to the entire refund of deduction made by the company from his wages in accordance with law and that the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased shall be entitled to all such amounts which may/were due and payable to him.
“Petitioner Company is directed to pay all such amounts which are due and payable to the present Respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Since the impugned judgment is confirmed, the Petitioner Company is directed to pay interest on the said amounts due and payable to the original Respondent and now to the present Respondents @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till it is paid over”, directed the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the judgment of the Industrial Court.
Cause Title- The General Manager, Mutha Founders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamal Balu Kurane & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:36982)
