DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DTC in this writ petition impugns the award dated 19th May, 1990 of the Labour Court on the following reference:-

(2.) This Court vide ex parte order dated 2nd May, 1991 while issuing Rule in writ petition stayed recovery by coercive process from the petitioner. On application under Section 17 B of the ID Act being filed by the respondent No.3 workman vide order dated 26th May, 1994 and as clarified on 8th May, 2000 payment at the rate of last drawn wages was directed / ordered.

(3.) The Labour Court has found that the respondent No.3 workman was appointed as a conductor with the petitioner DTC w.e.f. 20th June, 1981 on daily wages; that he became a regular employee w.e.f. 20th December, 1981; that he met with an accident (when off duty) on 14th January, 1982 in which his leg was fractured; that he remained on leave from 15th January, 1982 to 11th June, 1982 without pay; that thereafter he was examined by the Medical Board of the petitioner DTC and given three months light duty; that he was given duty at the post of TTC which post then had the same pay scale as of a conductor; however subsequently the pay scales of the post of TTC became higher than that of a conductor and consequently the respondent No.3 workman was removed from the said post; that the respondent No.3 workman was again examined by the Medical Board but found unfit to work as a conductor owing to shortening of his leg and difficulty in boarding and alighting from the bus; that the petitioner DTC offered to the respondent No.3 workman the post of a peon which is below the post of a conductor but the respondent No.3 workman did not opt for the same; accordingly the petitioner DTC vide order dated 21st June, 1983 terminated the services of the respondent No.3 under Clause 9 (a)(i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952.