How Should We Handle a Long-Term Absence Due to Disability and Legal Advice Request?

One of our regular employees was involved in a road accident during his day off while doing personal work in a nearby town. Initially, he was on sick leave, and due to the accident, his right hand became totally inactive, with no improvement even after undergoing surgery. He has been on extended leave for over 19 months, hoping for recovery, but unfortunately, there has been no progress. He has received a certificate from the state government's social welfare department indicating that his right hand has suffered over 70% permanent disability.

He has now submitted a letter enclosing his certificates, stating that he cannot use his right hand, without mentioning resignation. Verbally, he has requested termination of his employment, as advised by his lawyer, to pursue compensation from the insurance company through legal proceedings.

I am seeking legal advice from professionals to address this issue.

Dear Balasundaram,

The consequence of the personal accident of the unfortunate employee on his employment is highly deplorable. Even more pathetic is his request to terminate his employment due to 70% permanent disablement of his right hand for the sake of higher insurance compensation. The ways of God are always mysterious to mortal man. However, sentimentalism must sometimes give way to pragmatism in employment matters.

Although there is no mention of the nature of his normal work, it can be presumed that he is likely a blue-collar worker. Consequently, his further employability with the extent of his permanent disability remains a significant concern. Simultaneously, offering a suitable alternative job within the same company that suits his current physical condition is a viable option for the management.

Given that the Accident Tribunal can easily determine the impact of a 70% permanent disability on the right hand of an industrial worker and provide appropriate compensation, the employee's request for termination on medical grounds seems unwarranted to me. This is because it does not fall under the definition of retrenchment as per Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

While complying with his request may not be legally incorrect, is it necessary solely for insurance compensation? To terminate his employment on medical grounds, the management must refer his case to a Medical Board. If the Board suggests suitable alternative employment, then the management should consider all options carefully instead of promptly following the advocate's advice.

Kind regards

Dear Mr. Umakanthan,

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The employee in question is a senior technical expert, and without his right hand, he cannot perform his work. We have considered alternative employment options, but due to the nature of our work environment, the best we can offer is an office attendant position. However, there is a significant skill level mismatch for this role. The employee himself may also not be inclined to take on this job, and even if he does, he will have to rely on others to complete his tasks.

Regards,
T. S. Balasundaram

Dear Mr. Balasundaram, I opine that you can entrust the role of supervisor to someone who can take care of shop floor activities as well as act as a mentor/trainer to the juniors.

A Similar Experience

In an organization where I worked earlier in a similar scenario, the co-workers, immediate superiors, and HODs, along with us (HR), met with the senior management and requested an opportunity on humanitarian grounds. Finally, the management agreed and supported the employee, considering his expertise and commitment by entrusting him with a role of a trainer. He put his heart into it and developed around 8 exemplary candidates on par with his caliber.

I have just shared my experience, and this is a suggestion, but I am unsure of how it will work out in your case.

Thanks and regards,
Kameswarao

Dear friends, I am sure that Mr. Balasundaram, being an IR person, knows well the statutory implications of a termination on the workman's continued ill health in view of the definition of the term "retrenchment" under section 2(oo) of the ID Act, 1947. However, only the natural stream of humanitarian considerations overwhelming in him as a benign HR manager compels him to start the discussion and continue it. Mr. Kameswarrao's response, coupled with the anecdote, is a positive sign of the option for suitable alternative employment instead of termination on the grounds of continued ill health as requested by the individual.

The workman's request is based solely on the suggestion of his advocate to obtain enhanced compensation from the Accident Tribunal. My question is whether the workman himself is aware that the termination on his continued ill health, as requested by him, will not entitle him to any compensation from the management. Furthermore, if the road accident involves a motor vehicle, the tribunal must calculate the compensation according to the guidelines stipulated in schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Therefore, my suggestion is that the management should refer the individual for an examination by a Medical Board to ascertain his suitability for employment first and make a decision independent of his request.