Monday vs 435 And Argued That ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7007 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7007 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Monday vs 435 And Argued That ... on 1 March, 2021

WP(C) 2826/2021                      1/6

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  Present:
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

            Monday, the 1st day of March 2021/10th Phalguna, 1942
                          WP(C) No.2826/2021(C)
PETITIONERS
1.
      For  information purpose only
        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, THEKKERKA, 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
12.      ALEYAMMA JOSEPH
       W/O.P.C GEORGE, PONNAKUZHI THUMPAKKARA HOUSE,
       KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
13.      SHEEBA JOSEPH
       KOTTARATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOZHIKULANGARA P.O.,
       NEENDOOR, KOTTAYAM 686 601
 WP(C) 2826/2021                2/6

14.    MINI A.T.
     MATHIRAMPUZHA, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 562
15.    ANIAMMA JOSEPH
     KALLUMKAL, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
     KOTTAYAM 686 562
16.    VALSAMMA JOSEPH
     PAZHEPURACKAL, PONNAKUZHIYIL, KURUMULLOOR P.O.,
     KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM 686 632
17.
      For information purpose only
       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.
     XHIBIT P3-D/O.THANKAPPAN, KANAKKARI, KURUMULLOOR,
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, ATHI
     ATHRAMPUZHA 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
RESPONDENTS
1.       THE KOTTAYAM TEXTILES
      KURUMOLLUR P.O., KANAKKARI, KURUMULLUR, KOTTAYAM 686
      632 REP.BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
2.       THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE I
      OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE
      I, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
 WP(C) 2826/2021                      3/6

    Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to

direct the 1st respondent not to insist that the petitioners should work in

the 1 st respondent factory between hours of 10 p.m to 6 a.m, in the
interest of justice.


    For    information purpose only
     This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated
12-02-2021 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.A.JAYASANKAR &
MANU GOVIND,           Advocates for the petitioner , P.U. SHAILAJAN,
Advocate for R1 and of GOVERNMENT PLADER for R2 ,                 the court
passing the followings:
 WP(C) 2826/2021                           4/6




                                    A.M.BADAR, J.

-------------

WP(C) No.2826 of 2021

-------------

                         Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

    For information purpose
                 ORDE R     only

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on an interim application for modiﬁcation of stay order passed by this Court.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are employees of the 1st respondent and by communication at Ext.P3, they were informed to give their willingness to work in all three shifts with a rider that in the event of their unwillingness, they will be kept out of the work temporarily by employing other workers. By drawing my attention to the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that by notiﬁcation dated 07/07/2003, the State of Kerala had permitted employment of women in spinning and weaving industries to work from 6 am to 10 pm subject to the employer fulﬁlling the conditions laid down in the notiﬁcation.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents then drew my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs. Union of India & Another reported in 2004 KHC 1435 and argued that constitutionality of the Central Act can be challenged in any of the High Courts and an order passed in writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, either interim or ﬁnal, in view of provisions contained in Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have eﬀect through out the territory of India, subject of course, to the applicability of the Act. In the light of this position of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that constitutionality of the provision of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Triveni K.S Vs. Union of India [2002 (5) ALT 223], so also before the Hon'ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Court. Those High Courts have declared Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act as WP(C) 2826/2021 5/6

unconstitutional and as such, it is eﬀaced from the statute book. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to place reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this High Court and seeks time.

Post after one week.

For information purpose only Nsd

SD/-

01/03/2021
                                              A.M.BADAR,JUDGE
                                    /true copy/

                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
 WP(C) 2826/2021                 6/6




    For information purpose only

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KT/KSTC/PER/2020-21/93 DATED 28.01.2021 RECEIVED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. .