Smt. Sunita vs Mcd
2010 Latest Caselaw 5870 Del

                                                                   UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                W.P. (C) No.8642/2010


                                             Date of Decision: December 23, 2010


       SMT. SUNITA                                  ..... Petitioner
                              through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate

                       versus


       MCD                                      ..... Respondent
                              through Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

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

WP(C) No.8642/2010 Page 1 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




WP(C) No.8642/2010                                                  Page 2