Was the termination ‘retrenchment’ under Section 2(oo)?

No. The Court treated it as termination due to continued ill health, which is outside retrenchment under Section 2(oo).

Does Section 25F always apply when service ends?

Section 25F applies to retrenchment. If termination is for continued ill health, it falls outside Section 25F’s mandate.

What does ‘ill health’ include?

Even if general health is okay, any illness that prevents efficient performance of assigned duties counts as ‘ill health’.

What relief did the Court grant to the drivers?

RSRTC must offer suitable alternative jobs or pay compensation based on service length and remaining years to retirement.

Why did the Court mention occupational hazard?

Because the weak eyesight was caused by the job’s conditions. Workers hurt by their work deserve humane treatment and fair relief.

Anand Bihari and others v. RSRTC and another (1991 Lab IC 494)

Quick Summary

Drivers developed weak eyesight from tough driving conditions. RSRTC ended their jobs without redeployment. The Supreme Court said these terminations were due to continued ill health (outside “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo)), yet the humane remedy was to offer suitable alternative work or fair compensation. “Ill health” includes any condition that stops an employee from efficiently doing assigned duties.

Issues

Did ending the drivers’ services amount to “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo)?
If yes, was Section 25F (notice + compensation) followed? If not, what is the correct relief?

Rules

Section 2(oo): “Retrenchment” excludes termination for continued ill health.
“Ill health” test: If a condition prevents efficient discharge of assigned duties, it counts—even if overall health seems fine.
Relief principle: Workers harmed by occupational hazards deserve redeployment or adequate compensation.

Facts (Timeline)

Employment: Anand Bihari and others worked as RSRTC drivers on long, demanding routes.

Medical issue: Many developed defective eyesight, became unfit for driving after medical check-ups.

Action: RSRTC terminated services; no alternative posts or special relief were offered then.

High Court: Dismissed workers’ writs, treating the end of service as due to ill health under Section 2(oo)(c).

Supreme Court: Recognised occupational hazard, directed redeployment or compensation scheme; clarified meaning of “ill health”.

Timeline: RSRTC drivers, medical unfitness, litigation path and Supreme Court relief

Arguments

Appellants (Workmen)

Termination = retrenchment; Section 25F not followed.
Eyesight loss is an occupational hazard; redeployment or relief due.
Differential treatment was unfair and harsh.

Respondents (RSRTC)

Termination was for continued ill health → outside “retrenchment.”
Driving needs perfect vision; safety can’t be compromised.
No legal duty to re-employ into other posts.

Judgment

Held: The terminations did not amount to retrenchment because they were due to continued ill health. Still, given the job-caused condition, RSRTC must redeploy the drivers where possible or pay compensation linked to service length and remaining service years.

“Ill health” includes conditions that block efficient performance of assigned duties (like driving).
Occupationally injured workers should not be discarded; humane remedies are required.
In the connected case, a driver earlier shifted to helper post was to be reinstated with back wages unless he chose compensation.

Judgment visual: redeployment or compensation for drivers affected by work-related eyesight issues

Ratio Decidendi

“Ill health” under Section 2(oo) covers role-specific incapacity; such termination is outside retrenchment. Where the illness is an occupational hazard, redeployment or fair compensation is the just response.

Why It Matters

Clarifies when Section 25F applies and when it doesn’t.
Sets a humane standard for workers harmed by their job conditions.
Guides transport undertakings on safe staffing and fair remedies.

Key Takeaways

Point	Quick Note
Not retrenchment	Termination for continued ill health is outside Section 2(oo) retrenchment.
Ill health meaning	Includes role-specific incapacity that blocks efficient duty performance.
Relief model	Redeploy where feasible or compensate based on service and remaining years.
Occupational hazard	Job-caused conditions call for humane, fair employer response.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SEE → SAFE SEAT or SETTLEMENT” — If vision fails, give a safe seat (other post) or a fair settlement (compensation).

Check: Is the incapacity job-specific and continuing?
Consider: Are suitable posts available without safety risk?
Choose: Redeploy with reasons, or pay calibrated compensation.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Do these terminations count as retrenchment and trigger Section 25F?

Rule: Section 2(oo) excludes continued ill health; “ill health” covers duty-specific incapacity.

Application: Drivers’ eyesight loss made driving unsafe; causes tied to the job. Not retrenchment, yet fairness demands redeployment or compensation.

Conclusion: No 25F violation; grant humane relief—alternative jobs or suitable compensation.

Glossary

Retrenchment: Employer-initiated termination for any reason other than those excluded; needs Section 25F compliance.
Continued ill health: Ongoing condition stopping efficient performance of assigned duties; excluded from retrenchment.
Occupational hazard: Risk or harm arising from the nature of the job itself.

FAQs

No. Since termination was for continued ill health, it was outside retrenchment and Section 25F did not apply.

Any condition that prevents efficient performance of the job’s duties—even if general health is otherwise okay.

Because the harm (weak eyesight) arose from the work itself. Fairness requires humane relief for such workers.

Only if a suitable, safe post exists. If not, the proper course is calibrated compensation under the scheme.

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE	ANAND BIHARI AND OTHERS V. RSRTC AND ANOTHER (1991 Lab IC 494)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS	Section 2(oo); Section 25F; continued ill health; RSRTC; occupational hazard; redeployment; compensation
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS	drivers’ eyesight; medical unfitness; humane relief; labour jurisprudence; Supreme Court
PUBLISH_DATE	23 Oct 2025
AUTHOR_NAME	Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION	India
Slug	anand-bihari-and-others-v-rsrtc-and-another-1991-lab-ic-494