HC upholds reparation for sacked sanitation staff

According to her, she was removed from service in 2015 after she raised concerns over these violations.
HC upholds reparation for sacked sanitation staff
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, which had challenged a labour court order awarding compensation to a contractual sanitation worker it had laid off in 2015.

A bench of Justice Manoj Jain found no grounds to interfere with the labour court’s ruling, which had concluded that the worker, Sangeeta, had completed over 240 days of continuous service before being abruptly removed from her role.

While the court declined to order reinstatement due to procedural constraints around regular appointments in government services, it upheld the Rs 70,000 compensation previously awarded.

Sangeeta had been employed as a sanitation worker at the hospital since May 2007, earning a meagre Rs 5,500 a month. She alleged that despite years of service, she was never provided with basic entitlements, no house rent allowance, no leave, no transport benefit, and even less than the minimum wages prescribed by the Delhi government.

According to her, she was removed from service in 2015 after she raised concerns over these violations.

The hospital, however, argued that all sanitation duties had been outsourced to a private agency and that Sangeeta was not on any official employee list. It claimed when the contractor abruptly left in 2014, it had to hire workers on daily wages temporarily, and that services of all such workers, including Sangeeta, were discontinued once a new contractor was appointed in April 2015.

But the court did not accept this defence. It noted that while Sangeeta had submitted specific claims and details of cheques issued in her name, the hospital failed to present any documentary proof to back its outsourcing claims.

There was no copy of the agreement with the private enterprises, nor any official worker list to prove Sangeeta was not on the payroll.

Sangeeta’s unchallenged testimony and evidence of payments swayed the ruling in her favour with the high court holding that a compensation was suitable remedy.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Open in App
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com