Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 6]

Madras High Court

M/S.Polyspin Exports Ltd vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2012

Author: R.Sudhakar

Bench: R.Sudhakar

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 2.3.2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

W.P.Nos.29454 and 35951 of 2002
and
W.P.M.P.No.47851 of 2002



M/s.Polyspin Exports Ltd.,
1, Railway Feeder Road,
Cholapuram South,
Rajapalayam-626 139,
Virudhunagar District,
represented by its Director.      ... Petitioner in W.P.No.29454 of 2002


M/s.Standard Spinning and 
Weaving Mills Limited,
Chinnapandithanpatti-626 141,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District,
represented by its 
Managing Director.                 ... Petitioner in W.P.No.35951 of 2002
 
vs.

1.Union of India,
   represented by 
   Secretary to Government,
   Ministry of Labour,
   New Delhi.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
   represented by 
   Secretary to Government,
   Department of Labour & 
   Employment,
   Fort St. George,
   Chennai-600 009.

3.The Chief Inspector of Factories,
   Chepauk,
   Chennai-600 005.                  ... Respondents  in both W.Ps.


	Both Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue  a Writ of Declaration declaring that this petitioner is legally and lawfully entitled to employ women workers in all these three shifts including the night shifts.


	For petitioner 
	in both W.Ps.		:  	Mr.M.E.Elango,
	
	For respondents
	in both W.Ps.    	:  	Mr.K.Ravindranath
					Additional Central Government 
					Standing Counsel 
					for R1.

					Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai,
					Additional Government Pleader,
					for R2 and R3.

  -----

COMMON ORDER

Both Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the petitioner is legally and lawfully entitled to employ women workers in all the three shifts including the night shifts.

2. The prayer in the writ petitions is vague and misconceived. However, the grounds raised in the writ petitions reveal that the petitioner management is aggrieved by Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 which imposes certain restrictions on women workers employed in industrial units. That was challenged by one Smt.R.Vasantha in W.P.Nos.4604 to 4606 of 1999 batch and E.Padmanabhan,J, in a common judgment reported in 2001-II LLJ 843 declared Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State took up the matter by way of appeal. However, withdrew the writ appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. In view of the decision rendered in Tmt.R.Vasantha  vs. - Union of India reported in 2001-II LLJ 843 on the very same issue, the present writ petitions challenging the very same proceedings are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

ts To

1.Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Labour & Employment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

3.The Chief Inspector of Factories, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005