High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Vasantha R - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 4604 to 4606/1999 and others
Decided On : 08 December 2000
The impugned provision of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, which prohibits women from being employed in factories during night shifts, is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The provision is discriminatory and arbitrary as it is based solely on the ground of sex and does not serve any legitimate purpose. The Court held that women cannot be excluded from employment during night shifts when they are being employed in the same factory during the two day shifts and denial of employment on the sole ground of sex is violative of Article 15 and it is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed by women workers and management of various mills and factories challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, which prohibits the employment of women in factories between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. The petitioners contended that the provision is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the provision is discriminatory and arbitrary as it is based solely on the ground of sex and does not serve any legitimate purpose. The Court also held that the provision is not a protective legislation as it does not provide any additional benefits or safeguards to women workers.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the restriction imposed by proviso to Section 66(2) of the Factories Act, on the State Government's power to grant exemption is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution and the directive principles?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the provision is discriminatory and arbitrary as it is based solely on the ground of sex and does not serve any legitimate purpose. The Court also held that the provision is not a protective legislation as it does not provide any additional benefits or safeguards to women workers.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and declared Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, unconstitutional. The Court also issued guidelines and welfare measures for the female workers who come forward to work during the night shifts.
The crux of the contention in this batch of writ petitions is there shall be no discrimination on ground of sex, which is perhaps the most controversial of all protective measures, an ever raging controversy and the issue, has been now set in motion in the form of legal action. This Court deems it apt to quote the great jurist before taking up the writ petitions for consideration :
"It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights."
JUSTICE FRANKFURTHER, in Wolf v. Colorado 338 US 25, 27 1949].
In the present batch of writ petitions the plea that has been advanced is essentially a claim of equality for women with passion and the equality means equality of opportunity for both men and women. It is the plea of the petitioners that no discrimination shall be practised against women on account of sex in their livelihood, in their right to be treated as equal which includes equality of opportunity. In other words, absolute equality on par with men is the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioners in each writ petition filed for the women and by the women.
It is the further plea of the petitioners that women show their ability in various walks of life, besides they have played their part quite well and at times they have even beaten men on their own ground. It is the further claim that women could participate in the public activities and could also discharge their domestic duties as well. It is the further claim of the petitioners that in the field of employment in a factory as in any other field, the work in the third shift should also be thrown open for women and it is for the women to decide which shift they would work and which shift they would not do. The fulcrum of contention being when variety of careers had been thrown open to both men and women which recognise significance of careers to women and when substantial number of women are being deprived of chances of fair employment or equal opportunity on the ground that they shall not be employed during the night shift (third shift) the evils of discrimination is being played and the same shall not be allowed as it is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.In the above batch of writ petitions, the petitioners respectively most of the petitioners being women and some of them being the management of various mills or factories where the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, are being implemented, have advanced identical challenge to Section 66(2) of the Factories Act 1948, as arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It would be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the petitions leading to the present batch of writ petitions.
In W.P. No. 4604 of 1999, Smt. R. Vasantha who is employed in the fifth respondent-mills and who is willing to work during day time or at night time on shift basis, depending on the workload had come forward with the present writ petition. It will be sufficient to refer to the facts as set out in writ petition filed by Smt. Vasantha. According to the petitioner the fifth respondent has informed her that the management will render dormitories for comfortable stay and food within the factory premises, transport if necessary and other facilities to enable the women employees to work in the night shifts. However, due to the operation of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948
According to the petitioner the fifth respondent-company, a leading Public Limited Company, has established a composite textile mill consisting of spinning, weaving, processing and printing at Belathur Village in Dharmapuri District. The said unit is engaged in the manufacture and export of yarn and cloth such as dhoties, sarees, shirtings, suitings
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.