Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the retrenchment of drivers employed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation due to medical unfitness, specifically poor eyesight. The Corporation had established regulations requiring annual medical examinations for drivers, and those failing the tests could be discharged, with the possibility of being offered alternative jobs at the Corporation's discretion. Following medical examinations, several drivers were found unfit and subsequently discharged with compensation. They challenged their retrenchment in the High Court, which ruled that the Corporation must offer them alternative jobs. The Corporation appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant regulations, particularly focusing on the discretion granted to the Corporation under Regulation 17(3). It concluded that while the Corporation had the authority to offer alternative employment, it was not mandated to do so, and the discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly. The court emphasized that the discretion should not be fettered by self-imposed rules and must consider the individual circumstances of each case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the High Court's decision and directing the Corporation to consider the cases of the retrenched drivers without imposing an obligation to offer alternative jobs. No costs were awarded in the case.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Medical Fitness and Employment Discretion - Discretion to Offer Alternative Jobs - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) and 17(3) - The court held that the discretion conferred by Regulation 17(3) does not create a vested right for retrenched drivers to receive alternative jobs, but rather a right to have their cases considered. The High Court's direction to offer alternative jobs was erroneous as it exceeded the jurisdiction of the court to dictate how discretion should be exercised (Paras 279B, 279E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was obliged to offer alternative jobs to drivers found medically unfit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the High Court's decision and directing the Corporation to consider the cases of the retrenched drivers without imposing an obligation to offer alternative jobs. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Discretion in employment
- Medical fitness
- Alternative employment
- Statutory authority
- Public service efficiency
