Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
V.M. Vinu, S/o Mani - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondents
WP(C) NO. 14042 OF 2022
Decided on : 12-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) REVATHY P. MANOHARAN S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019) SAJANA V.H
For the Respondent: BY ADV K.SHAJ SMT. MABLE C KURIAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
The court upheld the statutory prohibition against employing women in Toddy Shops, distinguishing it from other contexts and emphasizing the protective intent of the law.
Headnote:
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Article 300A of the Constitution - Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 - Employment of women in Toddy Shops - The Labour Court directed the petitioners to engage the 2nd respondent despite statutory prohibition against employing women in Toddy Shops. The court found that the Labour Court erred in its decision, as the prohibition is intended to protect women and is supported by statutory conditions in the license. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 15 - The Labour Court relied on precedents that deemed similar prohibitions unconstitutional, but the court distinguished the context of Toddy Shops from Bar Hotels, emphasizing safety concerns for women in rural areas. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The 2nd respondent, a Toddy Shop worker, claimed wrongful denial of employment and back wages after being denied work based on a prohibition against women working in Toddy Shops. The Labour Court ruled in her favor, which the petitioners challenged.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Labour Court's award was illegal due to the statutory prohibition against employing women in Toddy Shops.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court was justified in directing the petitioners to employ the 2nd respondent despite the statutory prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Labour Court's direction was erroneous as it violated the statutory conditions of the license, which are intended to protect women.
Result: The Labour Court's award was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment denial and claim (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. statutory prohibition upheld (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C) No.14042/2022 has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P8 Award dated 06.01.2022 in ID No.46/2018 of Labour Court, Ernakulam. W.P.(C) No.3686/2023 has been filed by the petitioner who is a Toddy Shop worker, seeking to quash the same Award to the extent the management is held not liable to pay backwages or other benefits to the petitioner.
2. The parties to the writ petitions and the exhibits marked are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C) No.14042/2022, for convenience. The 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute aggrieved by the alleged denial of employment by the petitioners in TS No.107, Muthappan Liquors, Anthikkad Range, Thrissur. The 2nd respondent filed Ext.P3 Claim Statement alleging that she has been working in the Toddy Shop for long, under various contractors and even the petitioners permitted the 2nd respondent to work in the Toddy Shop in April and May of 2014. The petitioners denied employment to the 2nd respondent on and from 01.06.2014. The 2nd respondent claimed that she has been drawing a monthly salary of Rs.13,154/- and is entitled to payment of arrears of wages of Rs.6,84,008/-.
3. The 2nd respondent alleged that she has been denied employment holding that women cannot be workers in a Toddy Shops. The 2nd respondent sought for a direction to continue to work in the Toddy Shop and for payment of Rs.6,84,008/-. The petitioners filed Ext.P4 objection contending that the petitioners cannot employ the 2nd respondent in the Toddy Shop in view of Condition No.37 of Ext.P1 licence.
4. The 2nd respondent examined witnesses WW1 and WW2 and marked Ext.W1 document. Exts.X1 to X3 Other Exhibits were also marked in the dispute. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings and arguments, passed Ext.P8 Award dated 06.01.2022 directing the petitioners to provide job to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners state that Ext.P8 Award is illegal and has been passed without application of mind.
5. The Labour Court has no power to declare the provisions of any laws as unconstitutional, contend the petitioners. The Labour Court has no power to declare that the terms of Abkari licence issued to the 2nd petitioner is unconstitutional. Ext.P1 licence issued to the petitioner mandates that the petitioner shall not employ any woman in the Toddy Shop. In the absence of challenge to Ext.P1 licence, the Labour Court could not have passed Ext.P8 Award, contended the petitioners.
6. In her W.P.(C) No.3686/2023, the 2nd respondent contended that Ext.P8 Award is illegal to the extent it finds that the Management is not liable to pay backwages or other benefits to the 2nd respondent. Under Article 300A of the Constitution, no citizen can be deprived of right to property, except by the authority of law. The salary receivable by the 2nd respondent from the petitioners is property. The 2nd respondent has been retrenched in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is entitled to receive the arrears of salary from 01.06.2014 till date.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala.
8. Ext.P8 Award dated 06.01.2022 in ID No.46/2018 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam is under challenge in both the writ petitions. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent contended that she has been working in the Toddy Shop which is now run by the petitioners, for long years and that the 2nd respondent has been denied employment by the petitioners holding that women cannot be employed in Toddy Shops. The question arising for consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in directing the petitioners to continue to engage the 2nd respondent.
9. It is not in dispute that Rule 7(37) of the Kera
