Liability for Arrears of Wages Attributable to Administrative Delay in Referring Employee for Medical Recategorization

The respondent, appointed as a driver on September 7, 2010, applied for re-categorization to a lighter duty on April 29, 2011, citing brain illness and weak eyesight supported by a neurosurgeon's certificate.

The Depot Manager delayed forwarding this application to the Divisional Controller for 15 months (until July 18, 2012), and the employee was only referred for a medical examination on January 1, 2013.

During this interim period, the Corporation treated his absence as misconduct and imposed punishments.

He was eventually found unfit for driving and re-categorized as a watchman on May 20, 2015, before superannuating on March 31, 2016.

The Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Reference (I.T.) No. 202/2019, directed the petitioner to pay wages and benefits for the period between April 29, 2011, and January 1, 2013.

1. Whether the delay of 21 months by the Corporation in referring the employee for medical examination was justified by administrative exigencies.

2. Whether the respondent-employee is entitled to wages for the period he remained absent due to medical unfitness while his application for re-categorization was pending.

The court primarily applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate tribunals.

The principle of equity and fair play in industrial jurisprudence, specifically that an employee cannot be "doubly punished"—once through departmental penalties for absence and again by denial of wages—when the absence is necessitated by a documented medical inability to perform hazardous duties (driving) and prolonged by employer inaction.

The Court observed that the Corporation admitted to a 15-month delay by the Depot Manager in forwarding the medical request and a total 21-month delay in referring the respondent to a hospital.

The Court rejected the "administrative exigencies" argument, noting the petitioner failed to provide specific evidence for the delay.

It reasoned that forcing a driver with brain and vision issues to continue operating a heavy vehicle would endanger public safety.

Since the respondent was already punished departmentally for his absence, the Court found the Corporation's attempt to withhold wages for the same period unconscionable, attributing the inability to resume duties solely to the petitioner’s "mala fide" inaction and "sitting tight" over the application.

The petitioner is directed to comply with the award within four weeks; failure to do so will attract interest at 5% per annum from the date of the Tribunal's order (September 12, 2024) until realization. Rule discharged.