LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-264

RASHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 17, 2019
Rashi Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to set aside the impugned verbal order/direction to the petitioner not to attend office with effect from 03.10.2018. Consequently, direct the respondents to take action in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the present petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on contract basis for the respondent no.2 Council to work in the Statistics Division. The petitioner and three other ladies were interviewed in the respondent No.1 Department by Ms.Rabiya, Consultant (Statistics) and all the four joined as Data Entry Operator on contract basis on various dates in December, 2016. Along with the petitioner, one Ms.Poonam was also appointed and Ms.Poonam and the petitioner were informed that they would have to learn the work in the respondent No.1 Department and later they would have to work in the respondent No.2 Council. The petitioner and the other three Data Entry Operators were given temporary entry passes of Paryavaran Bhawan (now called the Pt Deendayal Antoday Bhawan) on various dates of December, 2016. The petitioner and the other three Data Entry Operators were aware that they would be paid salary through some Service Provider Agency, but had no personal interaction with the said Agency. Even though Provident Fund Contributions and Employees State Insurance Fund Contributions are being deducted from the salary of the petitioner, however, neither the petitioner has been given her Provident Fund Number, nor any Employees State Insurance Number or Card.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and Ms.Poonam were not paid the salary for the month of December, 2016, ostensibly due to some miscommunication between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, but they did not raise the issue, as both of them belong to poor families and were in dire need of some employment and were afraid that if they raise the issue, their services may be terminated.