| 1 |
RAVICHANDERAN
VS
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LTD
2004(3)
LLJ 152
[HC-MAD-SB]
|
1
2
3
4 |
A DRIVER OF CORPORATION MET WITH A NON DUTY ACCIDENT, BECAME DISABLED
CORPORATION TERMINATED HIS SERVICE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS
EMPLOYEE CHALLENGED THE TRMINATION ORDER UNDER SEC47&72 OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT1995 AND DEMANDED ALTERNATE EMPLOYMENT WITH PROTECTION OF PAY AND BENEFITS
CORP. TOOK THE STAND THAT HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SEC47 AS HIS ACCIDENTWAS NOT ON DUTY ACCIDENT
|
1
2
3 |
SEC47 OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ACCIDENT SHOULD BE WHILE ON DUTY
IF ACCIDENT HAPPENS WHILE EMPLOYEE IS ON ROLLS, HE WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO JOB PROTECTION PROVIDED IN SEC47
HE IS TO BE PROVIDED ALTERNATE EMPLOYMENT, IF REQUIRED, EVEN BY CREATING A SUPERNUMERARY VACANCY AND ADJUSTING IT AGAINST A FUTURE VACANCY
|
| 2 |
RAJAMANI
VS
STATE
EXPRESS TRANSPORT
CORP
2004(102)
FLR 1213
[HC-MAD-SB]
|
1
2
|
IS RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION UNDER W.C ACT, ACT AS A BAR TO VICTIM CLAIMING BENIFIT UNDER THE DISAB ACT 1995?
THE DISABILITIES ACT DEFINES”PERSON WITH DISABILITY”AS A PERSON SUFFERING NOT LESS THAN 40%DISABILITY AS CERTIFIED BY A MEDICAL AUTHORITY”
|
1
2
3 |
SEC 72 OF DISABILITIES ACT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BENIFIT UNDER THE ACT IS IN ADDITION TO AND NOT IN DEROGATION OF ANY OTHER LAW
HENCE COMPENSATION UNDER WC ACT WILL NOT BAR BENEFIT UNDER DISABILITIES ACT 1995
THOUGH THE LOSS IN EARNING CAPACITY WAS
|
