Opinion
The sole question presented by this proceeding is whether an industrially injured municipal employee is entitled to the vocational rehabilitation benefits mandated by Labor Code section 139.5, as amended in 1974.1
In September 1975, Thomas K. Slotten (hereafter applicant) sustained an industrial injury to his head, neck, and shoulders while employed as a police officer by the City of Santa Monica. Following settlement of his workers’ compensation claim through a compromise and release agreement, applicant submitted a vocational rehabilitation plan to the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Division of Industrial Accidents. The bureau determined that public employees are entitled to the rehabilitation benefits provided by section 139.5, found that applicant was a qualified injured worker under the rules and regulations implementing the section,2 approved the rehabilitation plan submitted by applicant, and ordered the city’s workers’ compensation carrier (State Compensation Insurance Fund, hereafter Fund) to provide the benefits called for by the plan.
*47The city and the Fund (hereafter petitioners) requested the bureau to reconsider its decision on the ground that there was no mandatory duty on the part of a public employer to provide vocational rehabilitation benefits to its injured employees. The request was treated as a petition for a hearing before a workers’ compensation judge on the issue of rehabilitation3 and such a hearing was held. The workers’ compensation judge found that applicant was a qualified injured worker entitled as a matter of right to vocational rehabilitation benefits under section 139.54 and upheld the bureau’s decision. Petitioners requested reconsideration and the matter was heard by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board sitting en banc. The board, with two members dissenting, held that section 139.5 mandated vocational rehabilitation for public as well as private employees and affirmed the judge’s decision.
Petitioners seek review and annulment of the board’s decision on the ground that vocational rehabilitation programs for public employees are *48governed by division 4.7 of the Labor Code (§§ 6200-6208) which provides for voluntary participation by both employer and employee and that the benefits of section 139.5 extend only to employees in the private sector. We have concluded that the rehabilitation services mandated by section 139.5 must be provided to any qualified injured worker, whether in the public or private sector, and that the board’s decision should be affirmed.
I
In order to place the issue presented by this proceeding in proper perspective, we begin our analysis with a brief review of the history of vocational rehabilitation programs for the industrially injured employee in California.
Prior to 1965, our workers’ compensation laws made no provision for vocational rehabilitation. Injured workers in need of rehabilitation had to seek aid outside the workers’ compensation system through state and federally funded programs. In 1965, on the recommendation of the California Workmen’s Compensation Study Commission,5 the Legisla*49ture made extensive revisions to the California workers’ compensation system, including the addition of section 139.5,6 providing for a voluntary rehabilitation program for “injured workmen”7 and giving the Division of Industrial Accidents authority to establish a rehabilitation unit within its medical bureau. In the same act, the Legislature amended section 3207 to include “vocational rehabilitation” within the definition of “compensation.”8
*50The voluntary program authorized by section 139.5 enjoyed little success. Since the statute contained no provisions for notifying employees of the availability of vocational rehabilitation services, many injured workers were ignorant of the opportunity for rehabilitation. Prior to 1975, the rehabilitation bureau consisted of only one rehabilitation officer and one part-time secretary.9 Between 1966 and 1969, only 14-1 workers participated in voluntary rehabilitation plans approved by the bureau and 111 of these plans referred the worker to the Department of Rehabilitation so that the cost of rehabilitation was met by the state rather than the employer or insurer.10 Under section 139.5, the employee’s rehabilitation benefit was credited as an advance against his permanent disability indemnity so that he was in effect paying for his own support during rehabilitation from other benefits. As an incentive for employers to furnish vocational rehabilitation, section 139.5 provided that employees’ permanent disability percentages were to be computed with reference to their ages and occupations after rehabilitation. (See Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal.3d 222, 234-235 [110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224].) However, this provision invariably resulted in lower permanent disability ratings for injured workers. (See Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 10 Cal.3d 222, 234.)
In 1971, the Legislature enacted division 4.7 of the Labor Code (§§ 6200-6207)11 establishing a notification and referral procedure for “full-time public employees who may be benefited by rehabilitation services and retrained for other positions in public service.” (§ 6200.) The State Department of Rehabilitation, rather than the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Division of Industrial Accidents, was given the authority to cooperate in designing and monitoring plans. The statute provided for mandatory notice of availability of rehabilitation services to any employee disabled for over 28 days and for mandatory notice to the Department of Rehabilitation of the employee’s disability. (§ 6201.) Employees’ rehabilitation benefits were expressly made additional ben*51efits, not meant to “be converted to or replace” any other workers’ compensation benefits. (§ 6207.)12
Although division 4.7 directed the formulation of a procedure for notifying injured employees of the availability of rehabilitation services, it was unclear whether delivery or rehabilitation services was intended to be compulsory or voluntary on the part of employers and their insurance carriers.13 In 1972, the Legislature resolved this uncertainty by adding *52section 6208,14 expressly making the initiation and acceptance of a rehabilitation plan under division 4.7 voluntary on the part of the employer, the carrier, and the employee.
In 1974, the Legislature passed two measures bearing upon the issue before us. Responding to the recommendation of the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, the Legislature amended section 139.5 (eff. Jan. 1, 1975) to make vocational rehabilitation at the expense of employers or their carriers a matter of right for qualified injured workers. (Stats. 1974, ch. 1435, p. 3138.) The Director of the Division of Industrial Accidents was directed to establish a rehabilitation unit with duties to review and approve rehabilitation plans, to adopt rules and regulations, and to expedite identification, notification and referral of industrially injured workers to rehabilitation services.
At the same session, as part of the Berryhill Total Compensation Act, the Legislature added chapter 3.5 to division 5, title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code, §§ 18120-18129) providing for industrial disability leave for “state officers and employees who are members of the Public Employees’ Retirement System.”15 (Stats. 1974, ch. 374, p. 734, urgency eff. June 30, 1974, operative July 1, 1974.) The law entitles a state employee who suffers temporary industrial disability to receive industrial disability leave benefits in lieu of workers’ compensation disability payments, the benefits consisting of a percentage of the employee’s full pay. (Gov. Code, § 18122.) “Industrial disability leave” means temporary disability as defined in divisions 4 and 4.5 of the Labor Code and “includes any period in which the disability is permanent and stationary and the disabled employee is undergoing vocational rehabilitation.” (Gov. Code, § 18121.) The disability leave payments are made “contingent on the employee’s agreement to cooperate and participate in a reasonable and appropriate vocational rehabilitation plan when furnished by the state. . . .” (Gov. Code, § 18127.) Government Code section 18124 provides: “Division 4.7 (commencing with Section 6200) of *53the Labor Code shall not apply to employees to which this chapter applies.”
The Attorney General rendered an opinion in 1975 that section 139.5, as amended in 1974, applies only to employees in the private sector. (58 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 871.) The Rehabilitation Bureau of the Division of Industrial Accidents, however, has interpreted section 139.5 to provide rehabilitation benefits to all employees, public and private, and has, as in this case, ordered public employers and their carriers to provide such benefits. (Swezey, Cal. Workmen’s Compensation Practice 1973 (Cont. Ed.Bar May 1978 supp.) appen. A, p. 188.) The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has likewise decided in this case that section 139.5 covers both public and private employees. There has not, however, been any judicial pronouncements on the issue before us. Hence, this case is one of first impression.
II
Our role in this case is to derive the Legislature’s intent in framing the various statutes pertaining to vocational rehabilitation for employees so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 10 Cal.3d 222, 230; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) “The guiding star of statutoiy construction is the intention of the Legislature. To the end that it be correctly ascertained the statute is to be read in the light of its historical background and evident objective.” (H. S. Mann Corp. v. Moody, 144 Cal.App.2d 310, 320 [301 P.2d 28]; Stafford v. Realty Bond Service Corp., 39 Cal.2d 797, 805 [249 P.2d 241].) Every statute should be construed in the context of the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and given effect. (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645.) Moreover, it must be presumed that the Legislature intended to enact a valid statute; consequently, we must adopt an interpretation, consistent with the statutory language and purpose, that eliminates doubts as to the constitutionality of the statute. (Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 10 Cal.3d 222, 229; In re Kay, 1 Cal.3d 930, 942 [83 Cal.Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142].) Finally, contemporaneous interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its interpretation and administration, though not controlling, is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous. (Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 22 Cal.3d 658, 668-669 [150 Cal.Rptr. 250, 586 P.2d 564]; Wilkinson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 19 Cal.3d 491, 501 [138 Cal.Rptr. 696, 564 *54P.2d 848]; Nipper v. California Auto Assigned Risk Plan, 19 Cal.3d 35, 45 [136 Cal.Rptr. 854, 560 P.2d 743]; People v. Navarro, 1 Cal.3d 248, 274 [102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481]; Rivera v. City of Fresno, 6 Cal.3d 132, 140 [98 Cal.Rptr. 281, 490 P.2d 793]; Mooney v. Pickett, 4 Cal.3d 669, 681 [94 Cal.Rptr. 279, 483 P.2d 1231]; Carter v. Com. on Qualifications, etc., 14 Cal.2d 179, 185 [93 P.2d 140]; People v. Berry, 147 Cal.App.2d 33, 37 [304 P.2d 818].) However, the final say on the meaning of a statute rests with the courts. (Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177, 188 [302 P.2d 574]; Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com., 17 Cal.2d 321, 326 [109 P.2d 935].)
The ultimate question in this case is whether section 139.5 extends mandatory vocational rehabilitation benefits to both private and public employees, or only to those employed in the private sector. We begin with an analysis of the intended scope of section 139.5 as originally enacted; next we consider the purpose and effect of the enactment of division 4.7; and finally we consider the effect of the 1974 legislation pertaining to rehabilitation of injured workers.
1. Interpretation of section 139.5 as originally enacted:
Insofar as the coverage of section 139.5 is concerned—that is, whether it applies to public as well as private employees—the current section retains the same language as the original version; it uses the terms “employee,” “injured workman,” and “employer” without modifiers telling us whether the section refers only to the private sector or to both public and private employment. In resolving this ambiguity, the section must be construed in light of history and in the context of the entire system of workers’ compensation of which it is an integral part. Consideration must also be given to any contemporaneous construction by administrative agencies charged with its enforcement.
For the purpose of division 4 relating to the workers’ compensation and insurance program, the word “employer” has been defined to include all public entities. (§ 3300.)16 Although section 139.5 appears in division 1 pertaining to the organization of the Department of Industrial Accidents, it was manifestly intended to be a part of the entire system of California’s *55workers’ compensation laws. At the same time that it added section 139.5, the Legislature amended section 3207 by including “vocational rehabilitation” in the definition of “compensation.” (Stats. 1965, ch. 1513, p. 3567.) Moreover, the foregoing legislation was enacted in response to the recommendations of the Workmen’s Compensation Study Commission which had been established by the Legislature with directions to undertake studies regarding the workmen’s compensation system “as set forth in Division 4 (commencing with Section 3201) and Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 6100) of the Labor Code.” The commission’s assignment was to determine whether the system presently fulfilled the purposes of the workers’ compensation laws, the studies to include consideration of the rehabilitation system, and to make recommendations “to further the accomplishment of the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation system in regard to restoring injured workmen to employment.” (Former § 6217, Stats. 1963, ch. 2040, p. 4270.) The California Constitution invests the Legislature with plenary power to establish “a complete system of workers’ compensation” including “full provision for such medical, surgical, hospital and other remedial treatment as is requisite to cure and relieve from the effects of such injury.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) Vocational rehabilitation is clearly a remedial treatment to alleviate the effects of industrial injury and must be deemed an integral part of any complete workers’ compensation system.
Thus, although section 139.5 appears in division 1 of the code, there is no doubt that it was intended to be part of the workers’ compensation laws found in divisions 4 and 5. In its recent decision in Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 658, the Supreme Court had before it a question involving the interpretation of section 132a prohibiting discrimination against workers injured in the course of employment. Although section 132a appears in division 1, the high court held that section 3202 enjoining liberal construction of the provisions of “Division 4 and Division 5” of the code “ ‘with the purpose of extending their benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment’ ” required liberal construction of all aspects of our workers’ compensation laws, including section 132a.17 (Id., at p. 668.) For like *56reason, the broad definition of the term “employer” found in section 3300 must be deemed to have been intended to extend to section 139.5 when it was enacted in 1965. It would be sheer automatism to say that the fortuitous placement of section 139.5 in division 1 rather than in division 4 of the code precludes application of section 3300.
Another important factor in the history of section 139.5 supports the broad interpretation of the terms “employer” and “employee.” From its enactment in 1965 until 1971, section 139.5 was apparently construed by both the Division of Industrial Accidents and the Department of Rehabilitation to apply to public as well as private employment. (Joint Rep. of Dept, of Rehabilitation, Health & Welf. Agency and Dept, of Industrial Relations, Div. of Industrial Accidents, Agr. & Services Agency to Joint Legis. Budget Com. (Feb. 1, 1977) Rehabilitation Services Provided to Industrially Injured Workers, p. 9.) This interpretation by the agencies charged by the Legislature with the administration of the law is entitled to great weight in ascertaining the intended scope of the section.
Petitioner seeks to invoke the rule that general language in a statute such as “person” or “employer” should not be construed to apply to governmental entities in the absence of explicit legislative direction where such construction would infringe upon sovereign governmental powers. Where there would be no such infringement on sovereign power, however, the reason underlying that rule ceases to exist and it may properly be held that the Legislature intended the statute to apply to governmental entities even though it used only general language. (City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, 14 Cal.3d 199, 277 [123 Cal.Rptr. 1, 537 P.2d 1250]; Flournoy v. State of California, 57 Cal.2d 497, 498 [20 Cal.Rptr. 627, 370 P.2d 331]; Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 21 Cal.2d 399, 402 [132 P.2d 804].) Nutter v. City of Santa Monica, 74 Cal.App.2d 292 [168 P.2d 741], cited by petitioner, presented a far different case from the one before us. There, plaintiffs sought to have the provisions of Labor Code section 923 pertaining to the right of workers to enjoy freedom of contract in labor negotiations apply to bargaining in the public sector. The court held that public employment at that time was based upon public law and not on the contract right of collective *57bargaining. However, the California constitutional provision authorizing the establishment of a workers’ compensation system states that the matters therein set forth are “expressly declared to be the social public policy of this State, binding upon all departments of the State government.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) Accordingly, our workers’ compensation laws have always defined the term “employer” to include all governmental agencies. (Stats. 1917, ch. 586, p. 835.) Moreover, by expressly including “vocational rehabilitation” benefits in the definition of “compensation” (§ 3207), the Legislature has indicated that all employees, public and private, shall enjoy the same rehabilitation benefits. Consequently, interpreting the word “employer” in section 139.5 to include the government involves neither an invasion of sovereignty nor an interference with the performance of governmental functions.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find no difficulty in determining that section 139.5 as enacted in 1965 was intended to apply to public as well as private employees, The crucial question, then, is whether the enactment of division 4.7 (§§ 6200-6208) impliedly repealed section 139.5 to the extent that it applied to public employees. We turn to that issue.
2. Enactment of division 4.7:
The Legislature declared that “the primary purpose” of division 4.7 is “to encourage public agencies to reemploy their injured employees in suitable and gainful employment” (italics added) and directed every public agency, its insurance carrier and the Department of Rehabilitation to set up procedures for the notification and referral “of injured full-time public employees who may be benefited by rehabilitation services and retrained for other positions in public service.” (Italics added; § 6200.) Thus, division 4 was intended to establish a notification procedure for that limited class of public employees who work “full-time” and who may be rehabilitated and retrained “for other positions in public service.”
As we noted earlier, although division 4.7 established a mandatory notification and referral procedure, there was a question whether it also contemplated mandatory delivery of rehabilitation services. The legislative history indicated that furnishing of rehabilitation services by the employers and their carriers was intended to be voluntary. In order to clarify the matter, in 1972 the Legislature added section 6208 specifically providing that “[t]he initiation and acceptance of a rehabilitation *58program shall be voluntary and not compulsory upon the employer, the insurance carrier, or the injured employee.”
Both the Attorney General and petitioner have attempted to explain the significance of division 4.7. The crux of the Attorney General’s opinion is that even if “employer” as used in section 139.5 could be interpreted to include public employers, division 4.7 constituted a partial repeal by implication of section 139.5 insofar as it applies to public employment. (58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 871, 874-875.) The Attorney General and petitioner also suggest that the passage of section 6208 indicated that the Legislature intended all rehabilitation programs affecting public employees to be voluntary. Neither argument is persuasive.
The Attorney General invokes the principle of statutory interpretation that where a special act conflicts with a general statute, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute whether it was passed before or after the general statute. (Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.3d 392, 420 [128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687]; Lacy v. Richmond Unified Sch. Dist., 13 Cal.3d 469, 472 [119 Cal.Rptr. 1, 530 P.2d 1377]; In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651, 654 [276 P.2d 593].) A special act will work a repeal by implication, however, only where it is in direct conflict with the general statute, in which event the special legislation effects a limited repeal of the general statute only to the extent that the two are irreconcilable. (Governing Board v. Mann, 18 Cal.3d 819, 828 [135 Cal.Rptr. 526, 558 P.2d 1].) Repeals by implication are disfavored and there is a presumption against the operation of that doctrine. (In re Thierry S., 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [139 Cal.Rptr. 708, 566 P.2d 610].) “They [repeals by implication] are recognized only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. The courts are bound, if possible, to maintain the integrity of both statutes if the two may stand together.’ [Citations.]” (In re White, 1 Cal.3d 207, 212 [81 Cal.Rptr. 780, 460 P.2d 980]; In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 727, 744.)
As we have demonstrated, section 139.5 as enacted in 1965 was intended to apply to all employers, public and private. Division 4.7 merely established a mandatory notification and referral procedure for injured full-time public employees who might be rehabilitated and retrained for reemployment in public service. Lack of such notification was one of the major failures of the rehabilitation program established *59under section 139.5 as originally enacted. Consequently, division 4.7 only supplemented section 139.5 as to injured full-time public employees who might be restored to public service. As such, division 4.7 was not in irreconcilable conflict with the continued inclusive coverage of all employees under section 139.5. The two laws could be harmonized without construing 139.5 as applying exclusively to private employers.
That division 4.7 was not intended to supersede section 139.5 insofar as public employees are concerned is further supported by the provisions of sections 3207 and 6207. As noted earlier, section 3207 was amended simultaneously with the enactment of section 139.5 to include rehabilitation within the definition of compensation. Section 6207 provides that the rehabilitation benefit under division 4.7 “is an additional benefit and shall not be converted to or replace any workmen’s compensation benefit available to [the injured worker].” As the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s majority opinion points out, if section 139.5 is interpreted to apply only to private employees, “industrially injured public employees will be deprived of the right of rehabilitation possessed by all other injured workers under the workers’ compensation system contrary to the express provisions of Labor Code Section 6207.”
Nor was the enactment of section 6208 intended to make division 4.7 the exclusive rehabilitation program for all public employees. As we have explained, the legislative history reveals that the section was added to clarify the original intent of the Legislature that rehabilitation services under division 4.7 were to be voluntary. The hearing notice for the Senate Committee of Industrial Relations describes the bill (Sen. Bill No. 1069) as clarifying legislation “making no substantive changes.”
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that neither the enactment of division 4.7 nor the addition of section 6208 effected an implied partial repeal of the coverage theretofore extended to public employees under section 139.5.
3. The 1974 legislation:
As noted in our earlier review of the pertinent legislation, in 1974 the Legislature amended section 139.5 to make vocational rehabilitation a matter of right for qualified injured workers and made it mandatory for the Director of the Division of Industrial Accidents to establish a rehabilitation bureau to review and approve rehabilitation plans and to adopt rules and regulations to facilitate the identification and referral of *60injured workers to rehabilitation services. We also noted that in the same session, as part of the Berry hill Total Compensation Act, the Legislature added chapter 3.5 to division 5, title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code, §§ 18120-18129) providing for industrial disability leave in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits to state officers and employees who were members of the Public Employees’ Retirement System. The law has since been amended to include officers and employees who are members of the State Teachers’ Retirement System and officers and employees of the Legislature who are not members of the civil service. (See fn. 15, ante.) The statute provides that division 4.7 of the Labor Code shall not apply to those employees who are subject to the industrial disability leave law.18
We find nothing in the 1974 amendments to section 139.5 indicating that public employees are to be excluded from the benefits therein provided. Inasmuch as section 139.5 from its inception has always applied to all employees, public as well as private, the mandatory benefits provided by the 1974 amendment perforce extended to all qualified employees, public as well as private. Rehabilitation benefits, now a matter of right under the 1974 amendment to section 139.5, are benefits included within the definition of compensation under the workers’ compensation law. (§ 3207.) Since the workers’ compensation law extends to all employees, public and private, in the absence of any provision in section 139.5 indicating that the benefits thereunder are to be withheld from public employees, the section must be construed as extending its benefits to public as well as private employees.
The foregoing interpretation of section 139.5 is in harmony with division 4.7. As a result of the 1974 addition of chapter 3.5 to division 5, title 2 of the Government Code, and subsequent amendments thereto, division 4.7 now touches only a limited group of public employees and, as to those affected, it merely provides an identification and referral *61procedure for those full-time public employees who may be rehabilitated and retrained for reemployment in public service. The goals of section 139.5, as amended, are much broader. The mandatory rehabilitation services required to be provided mean services reasonably necessary to restore the employee to “suitable, gainful employment” which is defined as “that employment or self-employment which is reasonably attainable and which offers an opportunity to restore the employee as soon- as practicable and near as possible to maximum self support, . . .” (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 10003, subd. (f); italics added.) The all-inclusive interpretation of section 139.5 does not render it in irreconcilable conflict with the limited voluntary program envisioned by division 4.7.
As we noted above, the administrative agencies charged with the responsibility of administering the rehabilitation laws have interpreted section 139.5, as amended in 1974, to apply to public and private employees.19 The Bureau of Rehabilitation of the Division of Industrial Accidents has, as in the instant case, so interpreted section 139.5. (Swezey, *62Cal. Workmen’s Compensation Practice 1973 (Cont.Ed.Bar May 1978 supp.) appen. A, p. 188.) The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, in an en banc decision in this case, has also interpreted the section to extend to public employees. “[W]hen an administrative agency is charged with enforcing a particular statute, its interpretation of the statute will be accorded great respect by the courts ‘and will be followed if not clearly erroneous.’ ” (Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 658, 668, quoting Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com., supra, 17 Cal.2d 321, 325-326.) We agree with the board’s interpretation of section 139.5 as extending rehabilitation benefits as a matter of right to all employees, public and private.20
An additional reason why section 139.5 should be construed to extend to public as well as private employees is that in construing a statute, courts should adopt an interpretation consistent with the statutory language and purpose that eliminates doubts as to its constitutionality. (Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 10 Cal.3d 222, 229; In re Kay, supra, 1 Cal.3d 930, 942.) To construe the 1974 amendment to section 139.5 as making rehabilitation benefits mandatory only to private employees would raise a serious equal protection issue. As the board observes, this would create two classes of injured workers, “those entitled to mandatory rehabilitation and those who are not.” In light of the declared social policy and objectives contained in article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, we have difficulty in perceiving a rational basis for denying public employees the basic rehabilitation benefits required for private employees.
Petitioner points out that since the 1974 amendment to section 139.5, two bills clarifying that section 6208 does not preclude application of section 139.5 to public employees have been introduced. Failure of these bills to pass, it is urged, is evidence that section 6208 was intended to render all vocational rehabilitation for public employees strictly voluntary. However, failure of passage is as likely to indicate that the Legislature thought application of section 139.5 to public employees was *63manifest. We agree with the view that “ ‘[a]s evidences of legislative intent [unpassed bills] have little value.’ ” (Miles v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 61 Cal.App.3d 243, 248, fn. 4 [136 Cal.Rptr. 508], quoting Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs., 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 58 [69 Cal.Rptr. 480]; see Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 264-265 [104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049]; Burgess v. Board of Education, 41 Cal.App.3d 571, 580-581 [116 Cal.Rptr. 183].)
Petitioner also points out that in enacting section 139.5, as amended, the Legislature made no appropriation of funds to cover the increased costs of providing mandatory vocational rehabilitation for public employees. It argues that this omission indicates that the Legislature intended that public employee access to rehabilitation remain on the pre-1974 voluntary basis. Respondents counter that subsequent to the passage of the 1974 amendment to section 139.5, insurance rates were raised to absorb increased rehabilitation costs and that public agencies covered by insurance programs were subjected to the same premium increases as private employers.21 We also take note of the fact, of which the Legislature must have been aware, that to deny injured public workers vocational rehabilitation benefits through the workers’ compensation system will ultimately create a larger drain on public resources as these workers apply for disability benefits, vocational rehabilitation programs provided by the State Department of Rehabilitation, or welfare.
Conclusion
We share the opinion expressed by the board that “the Legislature intended that all injured workers in the State of California are entitled to the opportunity to again become productive members of society, to become whole men and women, and socially participating human beings, whose health and welfare are clearly related to the needs of our society.”
The board’s decision is affirmed.
Gardner, P. J., and Morris, J., concurred.
Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 14, 1979.._