LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-87

FLORENCE JOEL Vs. MATER DEI SCHOOL

Decided On August 20, 2004
FLORENCE JOEL Appellant
V/S
MATER DEI SCHOOL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Petitioner, by this writ petition assails the order dated 17.7.2002, passed in appeal by the Delhi School Tribunal. Mr.Shukla, submits that petitioner was an illiterate widow, who had been engaged by Mater Dei School as a class IV employee. This was done in January, 1983. Her duties were washing clothes, cooking food, dusting and cleaning residential quarters of the Sisters and the chapel where the Sisters prayed. It is further claimed that petitioner was also cleaning the class rooms. Respondent-School and its Society did not issue any appointment letter to the petitioner. Petitioner's services were terminated vide letter dated 5.7.1996 w.e.f. 15.7.1996. It is stated that respondent Society, which ran the School paid a sum of Rs.13,288/- towards settlement of dues. Petitioner was not paid the regular salary and other retiral benefits, as paid to other employees. At the time of settlement, gratuity and compensation of 15 days each for every completed year of service was paid.

(3.) Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, denying the relationship of Employer and Employee between the Petitioner and School. It is stated that petitioner had approached the Sisters of the School, as she found herself in misery on account of ill-treatment by her husband, who was alleged to be a drunkard It is stated that purely as a humanitarian gesture, petitioner was given the job of cleaning, washing and attending to the cooking needs of the Sisters as also to clean the Chapel as part time domestic help. The Sisters, it is stated, are residing within the School premises. It is stated that the Sisters of the School had treated the petitioner as a member of the family and all her four children received free education and considerable financial assistance was given at the time of marriage of the daughters. Be that as it may, the question arising for consideration is whether petitioner was an employee of the School or not ?