DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GANPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule With conset of learned counsel for parties the petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner was employed as a conductr with respondent DTC and while performing his offical duty on 7.3.1987 met with an accident resuiting in fracture of bones of his right leg. The respondent workman requested for light duty. Disputes arose between the parties about the post which the respondent should occupy. In September 1992 respondent was considered by the Medical Board which declared him permanetly medically unfit. The respondents raised theindustrial dispute in 1992 and an award was passed on 23rd August in which it was held that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in SLP 1575/1991.Ved Praksh Singh Vs. DTC, in which it was held that the workman is entitled toreinstatement to equivalent lighat post of class III employee with continuity of service.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and during the course of hearing it was put to the learned counsel for pentitioner that the respondent Would be entitled to the protection under the persons with disability (Equal Opportunities, Prtection of Righat and Full Participation) Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), which came into effect on. 1/1/1996 and in view of the same the challenge to the impugned award, directing reinstatement and consequential benefits be futile.

(3.) In another case of a DTC. employee who retired prematurely on medical ground this Court in CW 5700/2000 Rajbir Singh Vs. DTC & Others decided on 24/1/2002 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination with consequential benefit in terms of section 47 of the said Act In view of the Act having came in to force in view of the imputed award dated 23.6.1996 I am of the considered view that the petitioner should be directed to take the respondent back into service and pay the sAlary from the date when the petitioner stopped pay full salary after termination of his service. The petitioner would be treated as in continuous employment without any break in servicde. In case the petitioner is not fit to perform duty which he was performing since the initial appointment till his disability, the respondent shall deal with the case of the petitioner in terms of proviso to Section 47 of the said The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms Parties to bear their own costs.