A public employer cannot demand an additional disability certificate without justification.

The petitioner, a KKRTC employee originally working as a Driver-cum-Conductor, was dismissed in 2019 for unauthorised absence attributed to ill health.

The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, without back wages, in a suitable alternative post under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

The Corporation’s challenge to that award was dismissed; the High Court directed the petitioner to apply with medical documents from a competent Medical Board and the Corporation to decide the application within six weeks.

The petitioner submitted a representation with medical records, including certificates assessing his disability at 40% and 45–50%.

After reinstating him and assigning lighter work, the Corporation issued endorsements requiring him to obtain another disability certificate from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru.

The petitioner challenged those endorsements.

1. Whether the Corporation was justified in requiring the petitioner to obtain an additional disability certificate from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital despite the medical certificates already submitted.

2. Whether the endorsements requiring that additional certificate should be quashed as unjustified.

Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, as applied in the Labour Court’s award, required the petitioner to be considered for a suitable alternative post in light of his disability.

The prior order in the Corporation’s writ petition required the petitioner to submit medical documents from a competent Medical Board and the Corporation to consider his application expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The Court also relied on Sharanabasappa v. The Managing Director, Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Kalaburagi and Others, W.P. No. 200403/2024, which held that repeated requests for medical certificates in cases of permanent disability may be arbitrary, and that if the employer requires medical particulars, it should communicate directly with the medical authorities.

The petitioner had already submitted two disability certificates, including one assessing permanent physical impairment at 40% and another recording disability of 45–50%; the Corporation also had an endorsement discontinuing his driving licence because of his 40% locomotor disability.

In these circumstances, and given that the Corporation had assigned him lighter work, the Court found no justification for requiring a further certificate from a particular hospital.

Applying the reasoning in Sharanabasappa, it considered the demand arbitrary and potentially victimising, particularly where the existing evidence assessed a permanent disability.

No order was made as to costs.