OMMA OOMEN Vs. FACT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are Post Graduates in Chemistry. They were selected as Attendant Operators, Chemical Plant, to undergo training in the first respondent company under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The training commenced on 22-4-1987 and has a duration of three years. Ten other male trainees were also simultaneously appointed. Of them, five left the company for better prospects. The remaining five male trainees were absorbed as Technicians (Process/Process Control), during September, 1988 before the completion of the training period. Respondent company conducted an internal examination for that purpose. It excluded the petitioners only because they were females. Petitioners filed representations dated 11-10-1988 claiming absorption as in the case of male trainees. The Government of India forwarded that representation to the Government of Kerala under Ext. P2 letter dated 16-11-1988. Petitioners also filed Ext. P3 representation before the third respondent for similar reliefs. Respondents did not take any further action pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3. In the meantime, 23 male candidates were appointed as trainee-attendants chemical operators. All such candidates were required to appear for an internal examination on 21-12-1989. Petitioners were, however, excluded. They, therefore, filed this Original Petition on 19th December, 1989 and obtained interim orders on 20-12-1989, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the internal examination for selection to the post of Process Technicians scheduled to be held on 21-12-1989. Petitioners 1 and 2 appeared for the examination pursuant to that order, .whereas the third petitioner could not.

(2.) Petitioners submit that they were excluded from appointment only by reason of sex, whereas even apprentice-trainees in the same category who were appointed in September, 1988 were allowed to take the internal examination leading to absorption. They submit that such discrimination is violative of Arts.14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, seek the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the internal examination leading to regular absorption and in the alternative to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 representation in accordance with law.

(3.) In a detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is admitted that they excluded the petitioners from internal examination leading to absorption as Technicians (Process/Process Control) because of the provisions contained in S.66 of the Factories Act, 1948, which enjoins, that-