Judgment

WANCHOO J. : The only question raised in this appeal by social leave is the propriety of a service condition in the respondent-concern by which unmarried women in a particular department have to resign, on their getting married. A dispute was raised about this condition by the appellant-union on behalf on the workmen and was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, in the following terms :

"The existing bar on ladies that on their getting married they have to leave the service of the company should be removed."

The respondent is a pharmaceutical concern. It appears that there is a rule in force in the respondent concern according to which if a lady workman gets married her services are treated as automatically terminated. It appears that such a rule is in force in other pharmaceutical concerns, in that region and the matter came up on two occasions before industrial tribunals for adjudication with reference to other pharmaceutical concerns, and on both occasions the challenge by the workmen to such a rule failed. On the first occasion the dispute was between Boots Pure Durg Co. (India) Limited v. Their Workmen, B. G. G. Part I-L dated 26-1-1956 and a similar rule was upheld in 1956. On the second occasion the dispute was between Sandoz (India) Ltd. Bombay v. Workmen employed under it, (1962) Industrial Court Reporter 22 There was agitation in the respondent concern in connection with this rule and the present reference was eventually made in February 1963. The tribunal followed its earlier decision in Sandoz Limited s case 1962 Industrial Court Reporter 22 and rejected the contention that the rule be abrogated. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal from this Court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

2. Ordinarily we see no reason for such a rule requiring unmarried women to give up service on marriage, particularly when it is not disputed that no such rule exists in other industries. It is also not in dispute that no such rule exists in other departments of the respondent concern itself and it is only in one department that the rule is in force. It can only be upheld if the respondent shows that there are good and convincing reasons why in this particular department of the pharmaceutical industry it is necessary to have such a rule. The only reason given for enforcement of this rule in this department of the respondent - concern is that the workmen have to work in teams in this department and that requires that they should be regular and that this cannot be expected from married women for obvious reasons, and that there is greater absenteeism among married women than among unmarried women or widows against whom there is no bar of this kind.

3. We are not impressed by these reasons for retaining a rule of this kind. The work in his department is not arduous for the department is concerned with packing labeling, putting in phials and other work of this kind which has to be done after the pharmaceutical product has been manufactured. Nor do we think that because the work has to be done as a team it cannot be done by married women. We also feel that there is nothing to show that married women would necessarily be more likely to be absent than unmarried women or widows. If it is the presence of children which may be said to account for greater absenteeism among married woman that would be so more or less in the case of widows with children also. The fact that the work has got to be done as a team and presence of all those workmen is necessary is in our opinion no disqualification so far as married women are concerned. It cannot be disputed that even unmarried women or widows are entitled to such leave as the respondent s rules provide and they would be availing themselves of these leave facilities. The only difference in the matter of absenteeism that we can see between married women on the one hand and unmarried women and widows on the other is in the matter of maternity leave which is an extra