The judgment establishes the principle that arbitrary termination of employment contracts, especially in cases of serious illness, violates the rights of employees and is discriminatory.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition, by a learned single judge, through his judgment, dated 30 November 2016. She had claimed a direction to the respondent Airlines Allied Services Ltd (hereafter “Airlines Allied”) a Central public sector company and a subsidiary of Air India Ltd. Airlines Allied provides support services to Indian Airlines such as air transport services; it also provides air transport services under the name "Alliance Air" to renew her contract as Air-hostess.

2. The appellant had responded and successfully participated in a process for recruitment, to the position of Airhostess that complied with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment/selection process began through an advertisement, in August 1996. The policies of Airlines Allied at that time were such that recruits to such posts were given contractual employment. The Petitioner was contractually employed on 07.11.1996 for a period of three years. Upon expiry of the contract period, Airlines Allied renewed the period by a like period; the last three year renewal was on 1.12.2011 for 3 years, which then expired on 30.11.2014. In the meanwhile, Airlines Allied promoted the Petitioner to the post of Check Cabin Crew in 2000. In the year 2006, apparently, she was reverted from the position of Check Cabin Crew which led to her filing WP No. 1375/2007 on 17.07.2007 before this Court. By order, dated 01.07.2008 the court held that the reversion order was illegal and directed the respondent to reinstate her to the post of Check Cabin Crew. The issue of seniority in Alliance Air and benefits given to the crew was apparently a bone of contention; the Airlines Allied issued a circular wherein it reiterated its stand that the AASL Cabin Crew will be flying as junior most in regard to NACIL now Air India Limited. That circular led to the filing of Writ Petition 5071/2010, which is pending consideration before this court.

3. It is stated that on 08.01.2013 the appellant reported sick due to excruciating pain in her back. She went to the Artemis Hospital, Gurgaon, where the X-ray of her backbone was carried out. She consulted one Dr. Patro in the hospital who diagnosed lumber disc prolapsed and advised her for strict bed rest for 30 days. She again consulted Dr. Patro on 18.01.2013 and 2.2.2013. The doctor diagnosed the Petitioner with UTI and advised her to get ultrasound of the abdomen, which was carried out on 03.02.2013. The appellant states that despite medication around February 2013 her condition did not improve and she had constant high fever. On 21.02.2013 she consulted one Dr. J.S. Guleria at Sitaram Bhartia Hospital, who advised for X ray of the chest and a CT Scan. Dr. Guleria diagnosed the Petitioner with Bone Tuberculosis and started the medication. The appellant states that tuberculosis of the bone or also known as “Potts spine” and is an extra pulmonary form of tuberculosis, which is likely to attack the spine and the ends of the long bones. If not treated, the spinal segment (vertebrae) may collapse and cause paralysis in one or both legs. Dr. Patro confirmed the initial diagnosis of tuberculosis of the bone in his opinion on 25.02.2013. She was advised, and took medication and underwent bed rest. Her course of treatment was altered slightly when she consulted an Airlines panel doctor, Dr. Deepak Choudhary, who advised her liver and other tests. The appellant states that she repeatedly visited and consulted the Airlines doctor, on several dates i.e. 15.03.2013, 30.03.2013, 24.04.2013, 09.05.2013, 22.06.2013 and 01.10.2013.

4. On 16.11.2013 the appellant again visited Dr. Choudhary who issued her a Fitness Certificate to join duty, further advising her to continue the medication. After the fitness clearance from the doctor, on 18.11.2013, she reported to her employer airline to resume her duties. The appellant submits that the procedure for joining back the d