5 December, 2017
This is pertaining to an appeal filed by an employee of Airlines Allied Services Limited (“the Employer”) aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition by a single judge of Delhi High Court through his judgement dated November 30, 2016. The writ petition was filed against the Employer by Ms. Chitra Sharma (“Appellant”) for non-renewal of her contractual employment with the Employer. In this case, contractual employment of the Appellant was terminated by the Employer due to the leave availed by the Appellant citing medical grounds.
The Appellant has been working with the Employer as an airhostess since 1996 as a contractual employee for a fixed duration and her contractual employment has been renewed by the Employer from time to time. In 2013 she fall sick and was absent from work for a long duration on account of her health issues. The Employer contended that the leave was not sanctioned. There was enough evidence to suggest that the Employer had been well informed of her health conditions from time to time by the Appellant.
The Delhi High Court in this Appeal stated that the obdurate refusal by the Employer to deal with the Appellant’s request for sick leave, on the one hand, and its insistence that she was on unauthorized leave, to say that she did not deserve renewal of contract, is clearly unfair and unreasonable. The Court stated that the Appellant who has worked for 5 consecutive terms diligently with the Employer should not be discriminated on account of her sickness. The Court held that as a state agency, the Employer is bound by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Employer should have reasonably accommodated the Appellant by renewing her contract without the period of illness coming in the way of consideration.
The Court mentioned that this type of attitude by the Employer amounts to an indirect method to get rid of older employees. The Court stated that the conclusions of the single judge that no relief could be given because the appellant was not on authorised leave, is unsustainable as it affords the opportunity to a public employer to terminate an employment arbitrarily.
The Court vide its order dated October 30, 2017 set aside the judgement and order of the single judge and held that the denial of renewal of her contract by the Employer despite being declared fit to fly is arbitrary. The Employer was directed by the Court to renew the contract of the Appellant.
For further information, please contact:
Vineet Aneja, Partner, Clasis Law
vineet.aneja@clasislaw.com
