MUMBAI: "The problem is not how to wipe out the differences but how to unite with the differences intact." The Bombay high court had quoted Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore in 2010 when it directed Shipping Corporation of India to reinstate an employee it had wrongfully removed in 2006 for being diagnosed with schizophrenia, in violation of Disabilities Act.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the HC order and threw out an appeal filed by SCI. The apex court verdict comes as a boost for the rights of differently abled under the Disabilities Act, said advocate Pradeep Havnur who represented him in HC.The case was about Mumbai's Edward D'Cunha who had joined SCI in 1993 as a trainee nautical officer cadet.
He had moved HC in 2008 to challenge a 2006 order of the Commissioner of Persons with Disability, Pune. The commissioner had rejected his complaint against SCI for forcing him to tender his resignation in June 2000.
D'Cunha had to sign off from a ship in 1997 when he fell sick with bouts of nausea and confusion. He resumed his duties on ship but in 2000 after several such bouts a captain allegedly coerced him to put in his resignation with a promise that he would be considered for a shore job.
He was never given a shore job. He complained to the disabilities commissioner. Meanwhile, doctors said his condition was schizophrenia in mild remission with 70% physical disability and certified him fit to resume shore duties. The commissioner, after almost five years, passed an order in 2006 upholding his resignation.
"We find that the ailment of the petitioner is clearly covered by the definition of 'disability' under Section 2(i)(vii) of the Disabilities Act, as also 'mental illness' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Disabilities Act," the HC bench of Justices Ranjana Desai and Amjad Sayed had said. The HC judgment written by Justice Sayed said, "We find the approach of SCI indifferent and devoid of empathy. Its role is more fiduciary in nature and it was not only morally, but statutorily obliged to protect the employment of the petitioner by offering him a suitable shore post."1
No comments:
Post a Comment