Skip to main content

No women can be asked to work in night shifts between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.

Kerala High Court: Considering the increasing rate of crimes against women, a bench of Vinod Chandran J, in order to ensure safety of the working women held that women cannot be asked to work in night shifts between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.

The instant petition was filed by the women employees of the Seetharam Textiles Limited, Thrissur. V.M. Krishna Kumar, the counsel for the petitioner contended that asking women to work beyond 7 P.M. and prior to 6 A.M. is violation of Section 66 (1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948. P. Vijayamma, the counsel for the respondent contended that the proviso to the above-mentioned Section enables the State Government to vary the limits provided thereto by notification in the official gazette with respect to any factory or group or class or group of description of factories.

The Court read the circular dated 7.6.2003 issued by the Government of Kerala which stated that women can be employed till 10 P.M. provided that the employer must provide free transport facilities to the women; ensure the presence of minimum of five workers including two women in a shift; and that the spread over time to a worker in a day shall not exceed 9 hours including rest period. The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the women employees and directed the compliance of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, and stated that women can be employed only upto 10 P.M. provided that the management strictly abide by the conditions as provided in the circular. [C.L. Cicily v. Seetharam Textiles Limited, Thrissur, decided on 18-03-2015].

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/category/Case-Briefs.aspx?page=5

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a