The main legal principle established is that the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, imposes mandatory duties on employers to protect the rights of disabled employees, including provisions for alternative employment and protection of service benefits.

( 1 ) THESE appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ). The fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from LPA 656/2002. The respondents herein were employees of the appellant herein. They were prematurely retired on the ground of medical invalidation. Questioning the said orders, writ petitions were filed by the respondents praying that they be reinstated in service with full wages.

( 3 ). The respondent-Rajbir Singh- met with an accident on 12. 8. 1996 as a consequence whereof his left femer bone was fractured. He remained under treatment till 16. 2. 1997. He was advised rest by his doctors for three months initially on 24. 1. 1997 and thereafter again so advised on 27. 7. 1997 and 15. 1. 1998. The respondent allegedly filed a fitness certificate issued by Dua nursing Home Sonepat ( Haryana) on 26. 5. 1998. However, he was directed to appear before a medical board, which declared him medically Unfit on 2. 7. 1998 and pursuant to and in furtherance thereof, the appellant passed an order on 10. 7. 1998 retiring him prematurely on medical grounds. Thereagainst he preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 10. 8. 98.

( 4 ). Before a learned Single Judge, a question was raised that in a situation of this nature the appellant herein could not have terminated the services of the respondent in view of the provisions of Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Before the learned Single Judge, inter alia, a question was raised that as the accident had taken place prior to coming into force of the said Act, the same would not be applicable in the instant case.

( 5 ). The learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal, inter alia held: (i) there is nothing on record to show that the respondent had not met with the accident; (ii) Having regard to the decision of this Court in Baljeet singh v. DTG 83 (2000) DLT. 286, it is not necessary that the accident must occur during the course of employment and thus the order of termination must be held to be bad in law.

( 6 ). Mr Sabharwal, and Mr Vibhnu Shanker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would, inter alia, submit that by reason of the provisions of the said Act, the right of the appellant under a statute or statutoiy regulations could not be taken away nor thereby condition of its employees can be interfered with. It was urged that statutory service regulations framed by the appellant herein in term s of the provisions of the delhi Transport Corporation Act are mandatory in nature and having regard to the fact that the orders impugned in this writ petition were passed in terms thereof, the same could not have been interfered with on the premise that the said Act governs the field. The regulations having validly been made, it was urged the same must be deemed to be part of the Act. It was contended that in any event, when action in terms of such regulations were taken by the appellant, it cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in taking recourse thereto.

( 7 ). Section 47 of the said Act, Mr Sabharwal, would contend must not be read literally, inasmuch as, so read, it would lead to absurdity and the employer will be burdened with unnecessary liabilities although the accident had not taken place during the course of employment.

( 8 ). Counsel would contend that the Apex Court in a situation of this nature had directed framing of a scheme in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd Ismail AIR 1991 SC 1099 , Even in Baljit Singh (supra), Mr Sabharwal would urge it was held that accident occurred during the course of employment.

( 9 ) MR Sabharwal would argue that the entire Act should be read as a whole and from the scheme thereof it would appear that it seeks to protect such persons who suffer injury during the course of employment mr Vibhu