case laws

Treasa vs State of Kerala

Treasa vs State of Kerala

‘ Protective precision cannot stand in the way of a woman being considered for employment for which she is otherwise eligible ‘. The Kerala High Court in Treasa vs the State of Kerala observed that a fully qualified woman cannot be denied her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours. Women can’t be denied Employment saying work involves Night Hours: Kerala HC Quashes ‘ Only Males can Apply ‘ condition.

The decision of Treasa vs the State of Kerala is between Tresa Josefine vs the State of Kerala. The Kerala High Court observed that a fully qualified woman cannot be denied her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours. Protective provisions cannot stand in the way of a woman being considered for employment for which she is otherwise eligible, Justice Anu Sivaraman observed.

Treasa vs State of Kerala

                                                                             Treasa vs the State of Kerala

The court set aside an embargo contained in a job notification issued by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited which allowed only male candidates to apply for the post. The court said that the said embargo is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the constitution. ” It is the bounded duty of the respondents who are Government and Government functionaries to tale all appropriate steps to see that a woman can carry out the duties and conveniently. If that be so, there would be no reason for denying appointment to a qualified hand only on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours “, the Court said.

Trease Josefine, an engineering graduate in safety and Fire Engineering was engaged by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, a public sector undertaking under the state of Kerala, as a Graduate Engineer Trainee. She challenged a notification inviting applications for the permanent post of safety officer available in the company to the extent it stated that only male candidates need to apply for the post, on the ground that it is discriminatory and that her right for being considered for appointment as safety officer is violated due to the said provisions.

She also prayed for declaring section 66 (1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 as unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14,15, and 16 of the constitution. The said provisions stipulate no woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours of 6 A.M and &P.M.

The court, in the judgment of Treasa vs State of Kerala, rate refers to various earlier judgments in which it was held that the provisions of section 66 (1)(b) are beneficial and are intended to protect women from exploitation. ” In the factual situation involved, we have to consider the fact that Factories Act, 1948 was enacted at a  time when requiring a woman to work in an establishment of any nature, more so in a factory, during the night time could only be seen as exploitative and violative of her rights. The world has moved forward and women who were relegated to the roles of homemakers during the times when the enactment had been framed have taken up much more demanding roles in society as well as in economic spheres.

We have reached a stage where the contributions made by women in the spheres of economic development cannot be ignored by any industry. Women are being engaged to work during all hours in several industries including Health Care, Aviation, and Information Technology. Women have been engaged in several professions that required wound clock labor and have proved themselves quite capable of facing the challenges of such engagement. ” The court said.

In Treasathe vs the State of Kerala the court also referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Secretary, Ministery of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others has declared that an absolute bar on women seeking command appointment violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the constitution.

It was held, the court noted, that submissions based on stereotypes premised on assumptions about socially ascribed roles result in gender discrimination against women and violate their fundamental rights. ” In the present scenario, to say that a graduate engineer in safety engineering cannot be considered for appointment as safety officer in the public sector an undertaking because of an offending provision under section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, according to me, is completely untenable and unacceptable.

This is evident from the fact that the state of Kerala has approved an amendment to the Rules which permits the engagement of women on the condition that all safety precautions and facilities for such engagement arranged by the are employers, the Judge said. The court observed that although section 66(1)(b) is only a protective provision, it can be operated and exercised only as protection and cannot be an excuse for denying engagement to a woman who does not require such protection anymore.

The court set aside an embargo contained in a hob notification issued by Kerala Minerals and metals limited which allowed only male candidates to apply for the male post. The court said that the embargo is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the constitution . ” in the present scenario, to say that a graduate engineer in safety engineering cannot be considered for appointment as a safety officer in the public sector an undertaking because of an offending provision under section 66 (1)(b) of the Factory Act, according to me, is completely untenable and unacceptable.

This is evident from the fact that in Treasa vs State of Kerala, the state of Kerala has approved an amendment to the rules which permits the engagement of women on the condition that all safety precautions and facilities for such engagement arranged by the are employers, the Judge said.

The court observed in Treasathe vs State of Kerala that, though Section 66(1)(b) is only a protective provision, it can be operated and exercised only as protection and can not be an excuse for denying engagement to a woman who does not require such protection anymore. ” In the factual situation involving, we have to consider the fact that Factories Act, 1948 was enacted at a time when requiring a woman to work in an establishment of any nature, more so in a factory, during the night time could only be seen as exploitative and violative of her rights.

The world had moved forward and women who were relegated to the roles of homemakers during the times when the enactment had been framed have taken up much more demanding roles in society as well as in economic spheres. We have reached a stage where the contribution made by women in the spheres of economic development cannot be ignored to work during all hours in several industries including Health Care, Aviation, and Information Technology.

Women have been engaged in several professions that required round-the-clock labor and have proved themselves quite capable of facing the challenges of such engagement. The court said. Women Can’t Be denied Employment daying work involves night Hours: Kerala HC Quashes ‘ only males can apply ‘ condition.

This is all about Treasathe vs the State of Kerala, which was a very interesting case.

Click to comment

Most Popular

To Top