Heard Mr.M.Premchand for petitioners and Mr. V. Krishna

Menon for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2.

The petitioners pray for the following reliefs:

“(i)

Declare that the petitioners are entitled to work in

between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. in accordance with Section 66 of

the Factories Act with respondents 1 & 2.

(ii)

Direct the 1^st respondent not to compel the petitioners to

work after 7 p.m. in the 2^nd respondent factory in

violation of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948;

(iii)

Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3

to ensure that the emoluments of the petitioners are not

effected in any manner for not working after 7 p.m.;

(iv)

To issue such other orders, writs or directions as are

deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;

(v)

Award cost of this proceeding to the petitioners;”

Admittedly the prelude to these prayers is Ext.P2 and the translated

copy of Ext.P2 reads thus:

“...Such employees will not get the permanent appointment

which they may get in future, promotion, side seniority etc.

Women employees who opts three shift rotation will only be

-5-

entitled for benefits and preferences.”

3.

The second and third respondents filed statement and

have explained the stand of Management on offering shifts to

woman employees of National Textile Corporation (NTC) at

Thrissur. The statement allays the fears of petitioners, but there is

no compulsion to accept the offer now given in Ext.P2. For giving

clarity to the stand taken by the second and third respondents, the

relevant portions in the statement are excerpted, which read thus:

“4.

It is however submitted that pursuant to receipt of notice

of the above writ petition and after going through Ext.P3

objection stated to have been submitted by the petitioners and

which as stated earlier had never been received by the Mill, it has

decided to re-allot duty to all the women workers including the

petitioners only during the day shifts upto 10 pm and the same

has been implemented with effect from 27.05.2019.

5.

It is respectfully submitted, as stated earlier, the majority

workforce in the second respondent Mill are women and if the

willing women are not being engaged during the night shift, it

would affect the functioning of the Mill which already is a loss

making unit. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be

pleased to permit the second respondent Mill to engage the

-6-

willing women workers during the night shift. It is further

submitted that all that was intended by the last clause of Ext.P2

notice is that the willing women workers who work during the

night shift would get a preference over the other women workers

in respect of grant of seniority, promotion etc.

6.

It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the

reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Further the reliefs sought

for are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court

in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

(emphasis applied)

4.

The learned counsel have been heard on the sentence

emphasized in Ext.P2 and the averments in statement filed by the

respondents.

5.

Mr. M.Premchand for petitioners contends that the

condition now stated in Ext.P2 is modulated in the statement filed

by the respondents. According to him the condition has no legal

sanctity at all and that if this unwritten and unspecified stipulation

either for seniority or promotion is accepted, then there is no free

volition available to an employee, particularly woman employee to

opt under Ext.P2. According to him, seniority and promotion are

-7-

governed by the service regulations of NTC and do not refer to the

option to work in night shifts as one of the requirements for either

better seniority or fair chances of promotion.

6.

The learned counsel for respondents has read the

condition in Ext.P2 and also the statement made by respondents 2

and 3 along with the Court, but unable to satisfy the Court that the

condition now imposed can have legal semblance, much less

authority in the scheme under which the