The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exclusion of employees based solely on gender, without exploring reasonable accommodations and legal provisions, violates the constitutional rights of equality and non-discrimination.

1. Petitioners are Post Graduates in Chemistry. They were selected as Attendant Operators, Chemical Plant, to undergo training in the first respondent-company under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The training commenced on 22-4-1987 and has a duration of three years. Ten other male trainees were also simultaneously appointed. Of them, five left the company for better prospects. The remaining five male trainees were absorbed as Technicians (Process/ Process Control), during September, 1988 before the completion of the training period. Respondent company conducted an internal examination for that purpose. It excluded the petitioners only because they were females. Petitioners filed representations dated 11-10-1988 claiming absorption as in the case of male trainees. The Government of India forwarded that representation to the Government of Kerala under Ext.P2 letter dated 16-11-1988. Petitioners also filed Ext.P3 representation before the third respondent for similar reliefs. Respondents did not take any further action pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3. In the meantime, 23 male candidates were appointed as trainee-attendants chemical operators. All such candidates were required to appear for an internal examination on 21-12-1989. Petitioners were, however, excluded. They, therefore, filed this Original Petition on 19th December, 1989 and obtained interim orders on 20-12-1989, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the internal examination for selection to the post of Process Technicians scheduled to be held on 21-12-1989. Petitioners 1 and 2 appeared for the examination pursuant to that order, whereas the third petitioner could not.

2. Petitioners submit that they were excluded from appointment only by reason of sex, whereas even apprentice-trainees in the same category who were appointed in September, 1988 were allowed to take the internal examination leading to absorption. They submit that such discrimination is violative of Arts.14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, seek the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the internal examination leading to regular absorption and in the alternative to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation in accordance with law.

3. In a detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is admitted that they excluded the petitioners from internal examination leading to absorption as Technicians (Process/ Process Control) because of the provisions contained in S.66 of the Factories Act, 1948, which enjoins, that

"no woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m.".

Technicians (Process/ Process Control) are required to work in shifts, one of which is from 4.00 p.m. till 12.00 midnight and the other from 12.00 midnight till 8.00 a.m. Reference is also made to the Certified Standing Orders of the Cochin Division of the first respondent-Company, which provides that an apprentice is a learner who has no claim for being absorbed in the company's establishment. Reference is also made to the contract executed by the apprentices to the effect, that the company has undertaken no obligation to absorb the apprentices after completion of the period of apprenticeship. It is therefore asserted that the petitioners have no right to insist upon regular absorption. It is further submitted that in the absence of any such right, petitioners cannot plead discrimination. Respondents submit further, that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the issue of a writ of mandamus contrary to the terms of the apprenticeship contract which they had signed with the respondent-company. Referring to the interim order of this court, permitting the petitioners to sit for internal examination, respondents submit that only two of the petitioners appeared and both had failed to obtain the minimum marks in the exa