Employment Contract Concerning Transfer Of Disabled Employee Subordinate To Provisions Of RPwD Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that an employment contract concerning the transfer of a disabled employee will be subordinate to the legislative framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Single Bench which had set aside the transfer order by IRCON International Limited (employer/IRCON) relieving a differently-abled employee (employee/respondent). The Court had to determine whether an employer, while passing transfer and posting orders concerning a differently-abled person, was required to keep in mind the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed, “A contractual arrangement between parties, including an employment contract, is always subordinate to the legislative framework governing the field occupied by the subject contract. Therefore, very often, protection is granted to one or the other party, which is inconsistent with the arrangement arrived at between contracting parties of their own volition.”
Advocate Debarshi Bhadra appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Padma Priya represented the respondent.
The employee, an orthopedically handicapped person with 72% locomotor disability, joined IRCON as an Assistant Manager. The employee alleged that he was neither given the reasons for transfer nor an opportunity for a hearing when he was transferred from Delhi to Bilaspur.
The amicus curiae submitted that Section 21 of the 2016 Act required an establishment to frame an ‘Equal Opportunity Policy.’ It was stated that Rule 8 of ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (2017 Rules) captured the ingredients of such policy. Rule 8(3)(c) stated that such policy must give preference in transfer and posting to differently-abled persons.
The employee argued that IRCON, being a public sector undertaking, cannot sidestep legal obligations cast upon it under the 2016 Act on the ground that it would be counter-productive if it were to comply with it.
The High Court explained that when a transfer order was passed concerning a differently-abled person, the burden to prove that it was triggered due to administrative exigencies or constraints would be on the employer.
“Notwithstanding any provision in the employment contract concerning transfer, it will stand superseded and/or be subordinate to the provisions of the 2016 Act and the 2017 Rules in the event it is bedeviled with inconsistency. Thus, the argument advanced by Mr Bhadra that the impugned transfer order passed by IRCON IL should be dealt with by ascribing to the same legal standard applicable to a non-disabled person is a submission that we are unable to accept,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Bench declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and imposed Rs. 20k in costs on IRCON payable to the employee.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ircon International Ltd v. Bhavneet Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5269-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Debarshi Bhadra
Respondent: Advocates Padma Priya, Rishabh Sancheti, Garvit Sharma and Habib Muzaffar; Amicus Curiae Rahul Bajaj
