SHALINI DAMODAR NIKAM Vs. INDIA UNITED MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard both sides

(2.) A question of fundamental importance arises in this case, something about which many a menadic insurrection had taken place in the course of the history. It is an action in the legal field, in continuation of the activities of Mad Maggeridge or her Indian Counterpart Mridula Sarabhai, as she was called, for liberation of workmen from male chauvinism and its reflection in legislature. Statutory exercises like the Equal Pay Act and many others of its kind, indicate the direction of wind. Cases like R. V. Secretary of State for Employment 1992 - I - ALL ER 545, would indicate the spread of ideas of sexual equality in judicial atmospheres. Why should there be any disparity in the age of retirement between a man and woman ? These are not the days when there is an incessant procession of cradles and coffins would render female employees in various employments exhausted and consequently less equipped for handling any type of work. More than 100 years back, the Supreme Court of America thought that a woman has her place in kitchen and not in law Courts. Justice O'cornor-the woman Judge, sits in that Court today. Courts in England which did not see may woman Barristers, has now Lord Butler Sloss in the court of Appeal. There are not only the areas where equality between men and women could be foisted in relation to an academic campus or the working in a factory. There are many dame deshpandes who fly an air-craft and land it with lesser jerk. I am prima facie satisfied that a different and differentiating system in relation to retirement age cannot survive of obnoxious prima facie as it is. In that view of the matter, the question will have to be examined at greater length.

(3.) IN view of the fundamental issue involved on which I have a prima facie inclination in favour of the petitioner's contention, I direct that she shall be continued in service until further orders.