SEENATH BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a Head Nurse working in the Taluk Head quarters Hospital, Thirroorangadi in the Health Services Department of the state has approached this Court with the grievance that she is required to do continuous duty for 14 hours at a stretch for 6 days consecutively.

(2.) A few facts may be noticed. The strength of the nursing staff in Govt. Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirrorangadi is 44, out of which 36 Nurses are Staff Nurses and 8 are Head Nurses. 4 Staff Nurses are working in other hospitals on working agreements. Similarly 2 Head Nurses are working in other hospitals. The strength of the Nursing Staff in the above hospital is thus reduced to 30. Government have introduced shift system in some of the Government Hospitals. Since shift system is not introduced in the Govt. Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirroorangadi, members of the Nursing Staff are compelled to work for 14 hours a day at a stretch. Petitioner is working 14 hours a day and she is allowed to avail only one day off in a week. She has averred in the O. P. that 'the work of nursing, especially in Government hospitals, is arduous in nature' and therefore long hours of continuous duty is too harsh and inhuman to stand the test of law and justice. She has prayed in this O. P. for a direction commanding the respondents to introduce 3 shift duty system in Government Hospital, Thirroorangadi, and for a declaration that forcing the petitioner to be on duty continuously for 14 hours a day for 6 days in a week is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, Smt. Anu Shivaraman who argued the case for the petitioner, submitted that rationalisation of the working hours by laying down just and reasonable time schedule is the duty of every employer in a civilized society, particularly of a model employer like the Government in a welfare State. The duty of the State is as much more than a private employer. It has got the constitutional obligation to do away with unjust and unfair conditions of service and replace them with benign conditions which are just, fair and humane. LEARNED counsel put emphasis on the need for a declaration as prayed for in this petition. To drive home the point, counsel brought to my notice relevant Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, decisions of the Supreme Court explaining the meaning and content of the expression 'right to Life' in the context of Art. 21 of the Constitution, relevant extracts from the text of I. L. O. Conference (Nursing Personnel convention 1977) and write-ups appeared in Health Care Magazines.