True equality at the workplace can be achieved only when disability rights are treated as a core part of corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Supreme Court has held, ordering public sector major Coal India Ltd (CIL) to create an additional post and appoint a woman with disability as a management trainee.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan said that companies, especially public sector undertakings, must view the rights of persons with disabilities not as charity or compliance, but as an essential part of their social responsibility.
“True equality at the workplace can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility,” the court said in its judgment on January 13.
The ruling came in a case involving a woman with 57% disability who had applied for the post of management trainee with Coal India in 2019 under the visually handicapped category. She was shortlisted and called for document verification and a medical examination but was later declared medically unfit after it was found that she also suffered from another neurological condition.
Aggrieved by the rejection, she approached the Calcutta High Court. A single judge ruled in her favour, holding that Coal India, as a public sector corporation, could not deny her appointment merely because its recruitment notification did not specifically mention “multiple disabilities”. The judge also set aside the medical report that had declared her unfit. However, a division bench of the high court overturned this decision in July 2024, citing technical reasons, including the expiry of the recruitment panel.
{{/usCountry}}Aggrieved by the rejection, she approached the Calcutta High Court. A single judge ruled in her favour, holding that Coal India, as a public sector corporation, could not deny her appointment merely because its recruitment notification did not specifically mention “multiple disabilities”. The judge also set aside the medical report that had declared her unfit. However, a division bench of the high court overturned this decision in July 2024, citing technical reasons, including the expiry of the recruitment panel.
{{/usCountry}}The woman then moved the Supreme Court, which took a different view. It held that the woman had been wrongly denied employment in the first place and that technicalities like the expiry of a recruitment panel could not stand in the way of doing justice, particularly when the fault lay with the employer.
The bench directed AIIMS to assess her disability through an independent medical board. The report confirmed that she had a 57% disability, well above the benchmark required for reservation under the law.
After interacting with her, the court noted her determination and desire to work. “We found her to be a lady of grit and determination,” the bench observed.
The bench emphasised that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is built on the principle of “reasonable accommodation”, which flows from the constitutional guarantee of equality and the right to live with dignity. It further underlined that the right to work is not merely an economic issue but a matter of dignity and livelihood, protected under Articles 14, 21 and 41 of the Constitution.
The court also flagged the intersection of disability and gender, noting that the case involved a single woman who had been unfairly excluded despite being otherwise eligible.
In a significant part of the judgment, the Supreme Court linked disability inclusion directly with CSR and global human rights standards.
Citing United Nations and International Labour Organisation principles, the court said businesses have an obligation to respect the human rights of persons with disabilities and ensure non-discrimination at the workplace. Disability inclusion, it added, is also a crucial part of the “social” component of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) framework, and should be seen as a strategic advantage rather than a burden.
Setting aside the high court’s division bench order, the Supreme Court directed Coal India to create a supernumerary (additional) post for the woman and appoint her as a management trainee. The court also directed that she be given a suitable desk job, with assistive facilities such as a separate computer and keyboard, in line with the principle of universal design under the disabilities law. Coal India has been asked to post her at North Eastern Coalfields, Assam.
The bench clarified that the order was passed in the special facts of the case and in exercise of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. The bench also appreciated advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma, who appeared for the CIL, for “using his good offices and bringing around a very happy end” to the matter.