Sunita v. MCD

1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in this writ-petition is to the award of the Labour Court-XVI at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated September 29, 2006, holding that the services of the petitioner who was working as a Safai Karamchari with the respondent were rightly terminated. It is not disputed that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on regular basis against the vacancy caused on the death of her father-in-law. It is also not disputed that pending decision on her application, vide office order dated February 09, 2000 she was employed as a daily wager Safai Karamchari for a period of three months only which period was 2010:DHC:6249 extended for further three months vide another office order dated May 23, 2000. Thereafter, no further extension was granted to her and on June 20, 2001, her application for regular appointment on compassionate ground against the vacancy caused due to the death of her father-in-law was rejected on the ground that her case was not covered under the Rules applicable for appointment on compassionate ground. The office orders dated February 09, 2000 and May 23, 2000 whereby the petitioner was appointed as Safai Karamchari clearly stated that she was being appointed as a daily wager and her appointment was for three months only. In view of these office orders, the petitioner could claim no legal right to continue after the expiry of the said period. Her contract for service with the respondent was for a specified period and that having come to an end, it has been rightly held by the Labour Court that her case fell under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010 PC/ka