Kerala High Court
This Is An Application For Vacating The ... vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2021
Author: A.M.Badar
Bench: A.M.Badar
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
Monday,the 15th day of March 2021/24th Phalguna, 1942
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C)/2826/2021(C)
For
PETITIONER
information purpose only
THE KOTTAYAM TEXTILES
KURUMOLLUR P.O., KANAKKARI, KURUMULLUR,
KOTTAYAM 686 632 REP.BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
1. SUMAN ABRAHAM,AGED 58 YEARS
KUMBALAMUTTIL, KURUMOLLUR P.O.,
KANAKKARI, KURUMULLUR, KOTTAYAM 686 632
2. SARAMMA THOMAS
KURUPPANATTU, KIZHAKKEKARA, KURUMOLLUR P.O.,
KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
3. JEYSI MATHAI
KARIVELIMALA IRUVELIKKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM 686 562
4. LEELAMMA ANTONY
MUKATHOTTIYIL, NEENDOOR VAZHI, MOOZHIKKULANAGARA P.O.,
ONAMTHURURTHU, KAIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 601
5. JANCYMOL MATHEW
KURUPPINAKATHU, ONAMTHURUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 602.
6. JAMUNABHAI G.
NIRAPPUKALAYIL, KURUMULLOOR, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
7. ELIZABETH THOMAS
D/O.MV THOMAS, MAMMOTTIL, THEKKEKARA, KURUMULLOOR P.O.,
KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
8. ALEYAMMA T.A. @ SOSAMMA WILSON
KURUPPANATTU, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
9. GEETHA PONNAPPAN
PONNAMKUZHIMALIYIL, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
10. REEJA C MARKOSE.
W/O.LALICHEN ZAVIOUR, KALANGOLA, KANAKKARY P.O.,
KURUMULLOOR, KOTTAYAM 686 632
11. KUNJUMOL M.
VADAKKETHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KURUMULLOOR P.O.,
KANAKKARY, , KOTTAYAM 686 632
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 2/8
12. ALEYAMMA JOSEPH
W/O.PC GEORGE, PONNAKUZHI THUMPAKKARA HOUSE,
KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
13. SHEEBA JOSEPH
KOTTARATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOZHIKULANGARA P.O.,
NEENDOOR, KOTTAYAM 686 601
14. MINI A.T.
MATHIRAMPUZHA, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 562
15. ANIAMMA JOSEPH
For information purpose only
KALLUMKAL, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM 686 562
16. VALSAMMA JOSEPH
PAZHEPURACKAL, PONNAKUZHIYIL, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI,
KOTTAYAM 686 632
17. SINDHUMOL KM
KARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 587
18. KUNJUMOL N.U.
THOMMANATH HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 631
19. SINDHU C. MOHAN
ARAPPATTU, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 632.
20. SALI THOMAS
W/O.GIGI JOSEPH, PLAPARABIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM 686 562.
21. GAYANIDHI G.T.
D/O.THANKAPPAN, KANAKKARI, KURUMULLOOR, MEENACHIL,
KOTTAYAM 686 632
22. AMBILY PRAVEEN
KANJIRAM NIKKUNATHIL, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI,
KOTTAYAM 686 632
23. KUNJAMMA K.J.
S/O.SABU, THUMPAKKARA, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI,
KOTTAYAM 686 632
24. BEENA KURIAN
KOONICKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 562
25. DHANASREE P.S.
PALAKKATTU, KALLARA, KOTTAYAM, PERUMTHURUTH, KOTTAYAM 686
611
26. SHEEBA MONEY
VELAMPARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 562
27. ANUMOL JOSEPH
W/O.FRANCIS THOMAS, KALANGOLA, AHTIRAMPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTACKUPURAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 562
28. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE I
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE I,
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 3/8
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted against
Ext.P3 in the above Writ Petition.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the
For information purpose only
affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's order dated 01.03.2021 in wp(c)
2826/2021 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, ADVOCATE
for the petitioner in IA/1st Respondent in WP(C), M/S A.JAYASANKAR, MANU
GOVIND, Advocates for the Respondents 1 to 27 in IA/ petitioners in WP(C) and of
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondent 28 in IA/2nd Respondent in WP(C),
the court passed the following:
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 4/8
A.M.BADAR, J.
-------------
WP(C) No.2826 of 2021
-------------
Dated this the 15th day of March 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
I.A.No.1/2021
This is an application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court.
2. The petitioner by this petition, has challenged the communication at Ext.P3 and other identical communications which are contrary to the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act. This Court, on 04.02.2021, had directed the respondent not to insist the petitioners to work in the 1st respondent factory between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
3. Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act reads thus:
"66. Further restrictions on employment of women.-
(a)xxxxxx
(b) no woman shall be (1) required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 P.M.: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, in respect of (2) any factory or group or class or description of factories, vary the limits laid down in clause (b), but so that no such variation shall authorize the employment of any woman between the hours of 10 P.M. and 5 A.M.; (3) there shall be no change of shifts except after a weekly holiday or any other holiday."
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He pointed out several difficulties faced by the 1st respondent, the Kottayam Textiles, in complying with the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 5/8 Factories Act. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, with the financial aid of the State Government, the petitioner is being revived and many women employees are ready to work in the factory in all shifts.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the following judgments rendered by several High Courts, has argued that For information purpose only the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 are declared unconstitutional.
(i) Triveni K.S. And Others vs. Union of India, reported in 2002 (5) ALT 223, decided by the honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court;
(ii) Natural Textiles Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India, reported in 2007 (3) Kar LJ 286, decided by the honourable Karnataka High Court;
(iii) Mahila Utkarsh Trust and Others vs. Union of India, decided by the honourable Gujarat High Court;
(iv) Benny Peruvanthanam vs. Kerala State Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd, reported in 2013 (4) KHC 791;
(v) Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd vs. Union of India and Another, reported in 2004 KHC 1435, decided by the honourable Supreme Court of India;
(vi) Pradeep U.R. vs. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, reported in 2016 (4) KHC 93, decided by the honourable High Court of Kerala.
6. With the aid of these judgments, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 are declared as unconstitutional by the honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court, honourable Gujarat High Court as well as other High Courts in the country.
7. It is further argued that, in the matter of Kusum Ingots and IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 6/8 Alloys Ltd (supra), the honourable Supreme Court has held that an order passed on Writ Petition questioning the constitutionality of the parliamentary act, whether interim or final, keeping in view of provisions contained in Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have the effect through out the territory of India, subject to ofcourse the applicability of the Act. It is further argued that this Court in the matter of Pradeep U.R. (supra), has taken the same view.
For information purpose only With this, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the interim stay granted by this Court needs to be vacated.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposed this prayer for vacation of interim relief.
9. The honourable Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Leela vs. State of Kerala, decided on 05.01.2004 and reported in 2004 (2) KLT 220, has considered the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act way back in the year 2004 and held thus:
"No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, the question as posed at the outset is answered in the affirmative. It is held that the provision of S.66(1)(b) embodies a special provision in favour of women. It does not suffer from the vice of discrimination. It is not violative of Art.14, 15 and 16 of the Constitutions. Thus, the petitions are dismissed. No costs. "
10. In this view of the matter, when the Division Bench of this Court has held that the provisions embodied in Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act does not suffer from the vice of discrimination and are not violative of principles of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the application for modification of stay cannot be granted.
The application is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR, JUDGE uu IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 7/8 /true copy/ Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For information purpose only IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 2826/2021 8/8 EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KT/KSTC/PER/2020-21/93 DATED 28.1.2021 RECEIVED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
For information purpose only