Kerala High Court
K.Mini vs Kerala State Textile Corporation ... on 17 June, 2022
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
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
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
