Thursday, February 14, 2019

Seema Vs DCP & Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled | Case No.616/1111/2018/12/831-834 | Dated: 13.02.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.616/1111/2018/12/831-834                                                      Dated: 13.02.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Seema,
D/o Sh. Harcharan Lal,
H.No.172, Gali No. 30D,
Molarband Extension
Badarpur, Delhi-110044.                                                .………..Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South East District,
Pocket C, SaritaVihar,
New Delhi, Delhi 110076.                                    …………..Respondent No. 1

Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled,
E-18A East of Kailash,
Near Kailash colony Metro Station,
New Delhi, Delhi 110065.                                    …………..Respondent No. 2


Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled,
CA: 39, 15th Cross, 16th Main, Sector-4,
HSR Layout, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560102.                                              …………..Respondent No. 3

Date of hearing      :         05.02.2019
Present                 :         Ms. Seema, Complainant
Sh. A.K. Peethambaram, Sh. Lalatendu Rout,       Ms. Anupriya Chadha, Sh. Govind Kumar, for respondent No.2 & 3.          


ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 88% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated nil received on 03.12.2018 submitted that she was working as a trainer in Samarthanam Trust since 17.05.2018.  After one month, she was informed that the project for which she was working, is over and therefore she has to work as a mobiliser.  Ms. Anupriya Chadha of the organisation told her that she would have to do the stitching work etc. without providing her any training.  She also alleged that she was asked to bring food which she refused.  She further alleged that one office boy behaved in a sexually suggesting manner.  They also put some substance in her tea due to which she met with an accident.  She was told to leave the organisation without even paying her salary.

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’.

3.       There was no response from Respondent No.1.  Respondents No. 2  & 3 submitted as under:- 
“Dear Sir,
Sub: With regards to notice of complaint to show cause issued to Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled
Ref no: Case No. 616/1111/2018/12/12785
This is with regards to notice of complaint to show cause for Ms. Seema’s case, herewith we would like to bring it to your notice that Samarthanam is a nonprofit organization working for last 21 years for the welfare of persons with disabilities across India. Samarthanam started with the vision of empowering disabled in the area of educational, social, technical and economical aspects. Samarthanam has benefited thousands of disabled through rehabilitation and helped them to earn their dignity of life. Hence, our organization has been successful in serving for disabled over last two decades and it has been recognized by the State and Central governments with awards for its dedication and concern towards the welfare of the disabled.
May we point out to your good self that this is the first case for which our organization has received this kind notice from the department. Ms. Seema has been employed in Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled, Delhi center as a trainer for tailoring from the month of May 2018. When we hired her, there was requirement for tailoring and we offered the job to Seema with condition that her employment remains in the organization until we have this tailoring project, after which, her employment will be continued only if there is any requirement with funding option. Also, as per organization’s policy each employee should serve 6 months probationary period to get employment confirmation. Since the project got over within 6 months of span, we requested Seema to serve notice period of 7 days as per our policy and requested her to submit resignation as there is no requirement for tailoring. Also, we assured that organization will offer job if there is funding opportunity for tailoring in future. This has been clearly discussed with Seema and we got oral acceptance over the call. Otherwise we did not have any intention to relive her from the job. And, we followed all procedures in relieving her from the job according to the offer letter, since our organization believes in respecting women and has concern about self-dignity of the employee.
With regards to complaint on mental and physical harassment, organization has a Committee and policy in place to tackle this kind of allegations. Organization has zero tolerance for such kind of harassment issues. In fact, this issue had not been brought to the management notice by Ms. Seema before filing the complaint. Otherwise we would have investigated with the Delhi team and taken necessary action against alleged offenders. As responsible organization, we will examine this matter and collect the information with evidence. If anybody is found guilty, our organization will take appropriate action against such employee.
We would request you to consider above points and instruct Ms. Seema to contact our New Delhi office and sort out her alleged complaints.

Yours faithfully
A.K. Peethambaram
(Authorised Signatory)
For Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled”

4.       The complainant vide her rejoinder received on 02.01.2019 reiterated her allegations about bad behaviour and ill treatment by the functionaries of the organisation and submitted that she should be given her job back.

5.       Upon considering the reply of respondents No. 2 & 3, a hearing was scheduled on 05.02.2019. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her written submissions and during the interaction, it revealed that she neither had any supporting document/ evidence to support her allegations against Sh. Govind Kumar and others nor did she inform the concerned officials in the organisation or filed any complaint with the police. She submitted that because of fear of loosing the job or further harassment, she did not file any complaint in writing. She also stated that she contacted the HR Manager but did not report the matter to him on telephone or submit any representation in writing/email.  She wanted that the delay in payment of her salary for the month of November, 2018 by nearly 20 days (the salary was paid to her on 24.12.2018 instead of 07.12.2018) should be taken as the proof for her harassment on the ground of her disability.  As per her, payment of some amount on account of conveyance is also pending. 

6.       The representatives of the respondent reiterated the written submissions that there is an Internal Complaints Committee and grievance redressal mechanism in place.  The complainant neither filed any complaint in writing nor brought the alleged instance to the notice of any senior functionary including the women functionary.  They informed that the complainant has filed a complaint in the Labour Court, Pushp Vihar regarding her salary for the notice period.  Three hearings have already been held and next one is on 06.02.2019.  The organisation has already deposited in the court a cheque for full and final settlement.  

7.       It is observed that as per the office letter dated 16.05.2018, the complainant was appointed to the position of Trainer and she was required to report directly to the centre Head.  Her salary was fixed at Rs.12,010/- p.m. and her suitability was to be regularly reviewed and the offer would stand cancelled in the case of any deviation in information or if she failed to report before 17.05.2019.  The offer letter also mentioned that the NGO is dependent on external funds and schemes and it is not certain that the NGO would always get the funds for programme.  Therefore, her employment would be continued as per continuation of funds or schemes.

8.       As a complaint is pending before the Labour Court with regard to her salary and the complainant does not have any documents in support of her allegations, the complaint is dispose of with the recommendation that any pending payment on account of local conveyance be paid to her within 10 days of the submission of the claim in the prescribed form as the representatives of the respondent have informed that the complainant has not submitted any claim in the prescribed form.

9.       The complaint is disposed of.

10.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day of February, 2019.



           (T.D. Dhariyal)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
       

No comments:

Post a Comment