Disabilities Act coverage excludes private companies: section 47 applies only to establishments within the statutory definition.

Section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was construed as an exhaustive definition limited to the bodies expressly enumerated in it. A private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be a corporation established by or under an Act, and therefore not an "establishment" for section 47 purposes. The scheme of section 47, read with its focus on Government employment and State-linked establishments, supported that confined interpretation. Because the employers concerned were outside section 2(k), no statutory duty under section 47 arose and relief under that provision was unavailable in the connected matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company, is an "establishment" within section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, so as to attract section 47; (ii) Whether the parties in the two connected matters are entitled to relief under section 47.

Issue (i): Whether a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company, is an "establishment" within section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, so as to attract section 47.

Analysis: The definition of "establishment" in section 2(k) is exhaustive and covers only the categories specifically enumerated therein. A company incorporated under the Companies Act does not owe its existence to that Act in the sense required by the expression "a corporation established by or under an Act"; it is incorporated under the Act and is distinct from a statutory corporation brought into existence by the Act. The inclusion of Government companies alone within the definition shows that other private companies were deliberately excluded. The marginal note and scheme of section 47 also indicate that the provision is directed to Government employment and establishments falling within the constitutional concept of State. Although the Disabilities Act is a beneficial statute and must receive a liberal construction, its express limitations cannot be expanded by interpretation to include private employers who are not covered by the definition.

Conclusion: A private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company, is not an "establishment" under section 2(k) and section 47 does not apply to it.

Issue (ii): Whether the parties in the two connected matters are entitled to relief under section 47.

Analysis: Since the employers concerned were not establishments within section 2(k), no statutory obligation under section 47 arose against them. In one matter, the employer was not even the employer of disabled persons, making the issue academic. On that basis, no relief could be granted under section 47 in either matter.

Conclusion: Relief under section 47 was not available in either matter.

Final Conclusion: Section 47 of the Disabilities Act was held inapplicable to private companies not covered by section 2(k), and the connected matters were disposed of with one appeal succeeding and the other failing.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "establishment" in section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 refers only to the enumerated statutory and governmental bodies, and does not include a private company incorporated under the Companies Act.

---