The Kerala High Court stated that a lady who is completely qualified can't be denied of her entitlement to be considered for work on the ground that she is a lady and in light of the fact that the idea of the business would expect her to work during night hour.
The court put to the side a ban contained in a job notification gave by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited which permitted just male possibility to apply for the post. The court said that the said ban is violative of the arrangements of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Court stated that" it is duty of government to all necessary steps so women can carry out their work at all hours, safely and conveniently. If this happens, there will be no reason for non employment of women because of late working hours".
Justice Anu Sivaraman expressed Protective arrangements can't disrupt the general flow of a lady being considered for work for which she is generally qualified. to make this statement more clear, Justice Anu Sivaraman added that, "Treasa Josfine, a designing alumni in Safety and Fire Engineering was locked in by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, under the State of Kerala, as Graduate Engineer Trainee (Safety). She tested a notice welcoming applications for the lasting post of Safety Officerin which it was expressed that lone male competitors need apply for the post, and that her privilege for being considered for arrangement as Safety Officer is disregarded . She additionally petitioned God for announcing area 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 is unlawful as violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The said arrangements specifies no lady will be required or permitted to work in any processing plant besides between the long stretches of 6 A.M. what's more, 7 P.M".
Additionally, court considered various decisions in which "it was held that the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) are advantageous in nature and are expected to shield ladies from abuse".
Court also considered recent judgement of SC of case Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others in which has pronounced that an outright bar on women seeking appointment violates right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that entries dependent on generalizations prefaced on suppositions about socially attributed jobs bring about sexual orientation victimization ladies and abuse their fundamental rights.
Finally he court observed that, however Section 66(1)(b) is just a protective provisions, it very well may be worked and practiced distinctly as an assurance and can't be a pardon for denying commitment to a lady who doesn't need such insurance any more.