SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(SC) 285

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI, K. N. WANCHOO
Bombay Labour Union: Committee For Defence Of Working Womens Rights, Maharashtra State Pharmaceutical Employees Federation – Appellant
Versus
International Franchises Private LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, M.R.Krishna Pillai, M.S.K.AIYANGAR, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.B.Naik, S.V.Gupta

Judgement Key Points
  • The core legal issue in the appeal is the propriety of a service condition requiring unmarried women in a specific department to resign upon marriage. (!)
  • The Industrial Tribunal initially rejected the workmen's challenge to this rule, following earlier decisions in Boots Pure Drug Co. and Sandoz (India) Ltd., which upheld similar restrictions. (!)
  • The Supreme Court noted that while the reason given was potential absenteeism and the need for team regularity, the work itself (packing, labeling) was not arduous and could be performed by married women. (!)
  • The Court found the argument that married women are inherently more absent to be unconvincing, noting that any difference in absenteeism regarding maternity leave can be managed by having leave reserves rather than terminating employment. (!)
  • The Court rejected the economic justification, stating that emoluments are the same for married and unmarried women, and the burden of maternity leave does not justify a drastic rule of immediate resignation. (!)
  • The Court clarified that an employer does not have absolute freedom to impose arbitrary conditions; industrial adjudication can vary conditions if the employer cannot justify them with convincing reasons. (!)
  • The Court distinguished the company's rule from Rule 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, noting the latter allows resignation only if efficiency is impaired, whereas the company's rule assumes efficiency is impaired solely by marriage. (!)
  • The Court concluded that the reasons advanced were insufficient to justify the rule and allowed the appeal, directing the abrogation of the rule effective from the date of the judgment. (!) (!)

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









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top