IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19741 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
K.MINI,
AGED 48 YEARS, D/O KUNJIKKARI,
KANDAYIL HOUSE, KLARI P.O.,
EDARIKKODE,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN- 676 501.
BY ADV. NICHU WILLINGTON
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
'ANNAPOORNA', TC 9/2000-01,
KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010
2 EDARIKODE TEXTILES,
A UNIT UNDER THE KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION
LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PUTHUPARAMBU P.O.,
EDARIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN 676501
3 THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, GRADE I
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
R1 & R2 BY SRI. P. U. SHAILAJAN, SC
R3 BY SRI. JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) No. 19741/2022
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, unfortunately being a widow, is an employee of the second respondent. She has been working in the post of Auto Cone Operator with Employee Code P364. Her working hours have been shifted as from 4.30. P.M. to 1.00 A.M. and 1.00 A.M. - 8.A.M., though as per the provisions of Section 66(1)
(b) of the Factories Act, 1948, no woman is permitted to work in any factory except between 6.00 A.M. to 7.00 P.M. As she could not attend the newly imposed shift, Ext.P2 show cause notice was served by the 1st respondent, which was duly replied.
2. Facing the difficulty, Ext.P6 representation dated 26.05.2022 has been submitted before the third respondent- Inspector of Factories & Boilers, in view of the provisions of Section 105 of the Factories Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) has already been quashed by various High Courts. It is settled law that once a Central Act has been quashed by one W.P.(C.) No. 19741/2022 3 of the High Courts, the judgment would apply in rem to all other States as it is not a local law.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has already issued various directions for fixing the time period for woman.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I think it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to take a call on Ext.P6 representation, after affording opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 and pass an order taking into consideration the provisions of the Factories Act.
Parties through their counsel or representatives are directed to appear before the third respondent on 21.06.2022 at 10.00 A.M. Let the order be passed by the 3 rd respondent within one month therefrom.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE DCS/17.06.2022 W.P.(C.) No. 19741/2022 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER'S SALARY | SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21/04/2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25/04/2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05/04/2022 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 26/05/2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT