Treasa Josfine V. State Of Kerala – Kerala High Court Quashes The Employment Condition Of Only Males Can Apply

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9th April 2021

JUDGES: Justice Anu Sivaraman

PARTIES

• Treasa Josfine (Petitioner)
• State of Kerala (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The limitations on work timings beyond for women under Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948 can't be an excuse to deny work to a woman who doesn't need such protection any longer, the Court stated.

AN OVERVIEW

1. A notice was issued by the management of Kerala Lakshmi Mills which said that the women employees who do not want to do night shifts will not be given permanent appointments, any promotion or seniority, etc.
2. They further stated that only those women who are willing to work in three-shift rotation only they will be entitled to further benefits and preferences.
3. The petitioners looked for an order to the company which states that the company should not compel them to further work after 7 pm, as per section 66 of the factories act, and should direct that their benefits should not get affected for not working after 7 pm.
4. The respondent filed a statement to the court which stated that as it is decided by the notice given by the court to make women employees work only till 10 pm and it has already been implemented.

ISSUES

The issue analyzed by the court –

• Whether women can be denied employment citing the nature and timings of their work?

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 66 of the factories act, 1948: states further restrictions on the employment of women.
• Article 14 of the Constitution: defines equality before the law.
• Article 15 of the Constitution: states the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, or place of birth.
• Article 16 of the Constitution: States that equality of opportunity should be given in the matter of public employment.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Kerala High Court Observed that –

1. A lady who is completely qualified can't be denied of her entitlement to be considered for work on the ground that she is a lady and because the idea of the business would expect her to work during night hours.
2. Justice Anu Sivaraman expressed that defensive arrangements can't disrupt the general flow of a lady being considered for work for which she is generally qualified.
3. The court put to the side a ban contained in a task warning gave by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited which permitted just male contenders to apply for the post.
4. The court said that the said ban has abused the arrangements of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. "It is the bounden obligation of the respondents who are Government and Government functionaries to find all proper ways to see that a lady can complete the obligations appointed to her at throughout the hours, securely and helpfully. If that be along these lines, there would be no justification denying arrangement to a certified hand just on the ground that she is a lady and because the idea of the business would expect her to work during night hours", the Court said.
5. The court, in its judgment, alludes to different prior decisions in which it was held that the arrangements of Section 66(1) (b) are advantageous and are expected to shield ladies from abuse. "In the authentic circumstance included, we need to consider the way that Factories Act, 1948 was ordered while requiring a lady to work in a foundation of any nature, all the more so in a plant, during evening time must be viewed as shifty and violative of her privileges. The World has pushed ahead and ladies who were consigned to the jobs of home producers during the occasions when the authorization had been outlined have taken up considerably more requesting jobs in the public arena just as in financial circles. We have arrived at a phase where the commitments made by ladies in the circles of financial improvement can't be disregarded by any industry. Ladies are being locked into work throughout the hours in a few ventures including Health Care, Aviation, and Information Technology. Ladies have been occupied with a few callings needing nonstop work and have substantiated themselves very fit for confronting the difficulties of such commitment." the court said.
6. The court additionally alluded to Secretary, Ministry of Defense V. Babita Puniya and others [(2020) 7 SCC 469] has announced that a flat-out bar on ladies looking for order arrangement disregards the assurance of uniformity under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, the court noticed, that entries dependent on generalizations commenced on suppositions about socially credited jobs bring about sex oppression ladies and abuse their central rights.
7. The court saw that however Section 66(1)(b) is just a defensive arrangement, it tends to be worked and practiced uniquely as an insurance and can't be a pardon for denying commitment to a lady who doesn't need such assurance anymore.

CONCLUSION

The Kerala High Court orders, there ought not to be any oppression of a lady denying her business saying work includes night obligation hours. The Court said a lady who is qualified can't be denied her entitlement to be considered for work on the ground that she is a lady and would expect her to work during night hours. The court likewise said that the public authority ought to give security to ladies if essential. The High Court request was given on an appeal documented by a Kollam local, denying her work in the fire and wellbeing office.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement