DHARMARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chellamma, concededly contributed to the cleanliness of the toddy shop. That is admitted by the petitioner contractor of the toddy shop; for, even according to his statement in the appeal, she is "sweeping and cleaning" the shop. Yet she is not an employee under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the contention of the petitioner.

(2.) The toddy trade does not appear to have shown any discrimination grounded on sex. The tradition would have it that women used to climb the palms in ancient Kerala. A female figure is associated with toddy vending, in olden days and in the present times; and she is, as such, described in ancient Sanskrit stanzas and modern literary lyrics. These considerations are, however, irrelevant when the Court handles the question: Is she an 'employee' under the Act The question has necessarily to be answered with reference to the scheme of the Act, and the definition of the term 'employee'. That term is defined in S.2(d) in the following words:

(3.) According to the petitioner, she has no part to play in the actual sale. She does not measure the toddy; nor hand over the glass or bottle to the eager customer. Nor does she receive the cash when it is paid. This contention of the petitioner is based on a limited and narrow understanding of the term ''connected with the sale." The approach is indeed that of a lay man and not of a law man. Similar attempts at restricted interpretation of a meaningful social legislation have been discountenanced in this country and elsewhere, many years back. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment with the catena of judicial decisions, where, cognate occupations have been brought within the vortex of the 'workman' definition.