BOMBAY LABOUR UNION THE COMMITTEE FOR DEFENCE OF WORK ING WOMENS RIGHTS Vs. INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISESP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this appeal by social leave is the propriety of a service condition in the respondent-concern by which unmarried women in a particular department have to resign, on their getting married. A dispute was raised about this condition by the appellant-union on behalf on the workmen and was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, in the following terms:

(2.) Ordinarily we see no reason for such a rule requiring unmarried women to give up service on marriage, particularly when it is not disputed that no such rule exists in other industries. It is also not in dispute that no such rule exists in other departments of the respondent concern itself and it is only in one department that the rule is in force. It can only be upheld if the respondent shows that there are good and convincing reasons why in this particular department of the pharmaceutical industry it is necessary to have such a rule. The only reason given for enforcement of this rule in this department of the respondent - concern is that the workmen have to work in teams in this department and that requires that they should be regular and that this cannot be expected from married women for obvious reasons, and that there is greater absenteeism among married women than among unmarried women or widows against whom there is no bar of this kind.

(3.) We are not impressed by these reasons for retaining a rule of this kind. The work in his department is not arduous for the department is concerned with packing labeling, putting in phials and other work of this kind which has to be done after the pharmaceutical product has been manufactured. Nor do we think that because the work has to be done as a team it cannot be done by married women. We also feel that there is nothing to show that married women would necessarily be more likely to be absent than unmarried women or widows. If it is the presence of children which may be said to account for greater absenteeism among married woman that would be so more or less in the case of widows with children also. The fact that the work has got to be done as a team and presence of all those workmen is necessary is in our opinion no disqualification so far as married women are concerned. It cannot be disputed that even unmarried women or widows are entitled to such leave as the respondent's rules provide and they would be availing themselves of these leave facilities. The only difference in the matter of absenteeism that we can see between married women on the one hand and unmarried women and widows on the other is in the matter of maternity leave which is an extra facility available to married women. To this extent only, married women are more likely to be absent than unmarried women and widows. But such absence can in our opinion be easily provided for by having a few extra women as leave reserve and can thus hardly be a ground for such a drastic rule as the present which requires an unmarried woman to resign as soon as she marries. We have been unable to understand how it can be said that it is necessary in the interest of efficient operation and in the company's economic interest not to employ married women. So far as efficient operation is concerned it can hardly be said that married women would be less efficient than unmarried women or widows so far as pure efficiency in work is concerned, apart of course from the question of maternity leave. As to the economic interest of the concern we fail to see what difference the employment of married women will make in that connection for the emoluments whether of an unmarried woman or of a married woman are the same. The only difference between the two as we have already said is the burden on account of maternity leave. But as to that the respondent contends that the reason for having this rule is not the respondent's desire to avoid the small burden to be placed on it on account of maternity leave. If that is so, we fail to see any justification for a rule of this kind which requires an unmarried woman to give up service immediately she marries. We are therefore of opinion that there is no good and convincing reason why such a rule should continue in one department of the pharmaceutical industry. The fact that such a rule exists in other such concerns is no justification, if the rule cannot be justified on its own merits.