In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court seeking directions upon T.K.E.S India Pvt. Ltd. to reinstate the petitioner in service and to provide reasonable accommodation, including suitable duties consistent with his medical conditions in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, among other prayers, a Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe directed the company to comply with the directions of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
The petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Commercial Assistant in T.K.E.S and was given multiple increments as appreciation for his work. In 2018, he was appointed and confirmed as Deputy Manager. In 2020, while the petitioner was commuting to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, he suffered a major brain haemorrhage, which resulted in right hemiplegia as well as a temporary loss of speech. On 14-04-2022, the doctor concerned issued him a medical certificate stating that due to the said haemorrhage, the petitioner could only speak and few words and could not walk without support. It was also certified that he could rejoin desk job with light duties. In 2023, a disability certificate was issued which certified that the petitioner suffered from a 40% permanent disability.
Thereafter, upon directions of T.K.E.S., the petitioner appeared before its medical officer and was then directed to visit a certified surgeon under the Factories Act, 1948, for further examination. In December, 2023, a chest specialist declared the petitioner to be unfit for the job.
The petitioner sent letters to the company for reinstatement in service and also filed a dispute application before the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities Welfare (respondent 2) for his grievance.
After a hearing, the petitioner filed an application to obtain the Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) from the company. T.K.E.S was then directed by the Commissioner to submit a proposal for registration of EOP for employees with disabilities as per the ROPD Act. The petitioner submitted that T.K.E.S. had failed to provide the details as directed by the Commissioner.
The Court perused the prayers and held that they could not be granted as the company was a private party and not ‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution. However, the Court entertained the petition to the extent that it was concerned with the decision by the State Commissioner. Thus, while disposing of the petition, the Court directed the State Commissioner to carry out the directions as mentioned in its communication to T.K.E.S to its logical conclusion and to take appropriate action in accordance with law within three weeks.
