- (1.) THE sixteen petitioners are seeking a declaration that decision of the first respondent that its certain retail outlets only women should be engaged for running the outlets is hit by the provisions in Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution of India. They are seeking an order directing the Central government to consider and decide the nature of the job performed by them for holding that it is perennial in nature, and hence the system of employment of contract labour should be prohibited in the retail outlets of the first respondent.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners argues that the decision to engage only women workers for running the outlets is unconstitutional. She says that because of the decision man workers working in the outlets in many years lost their employment. Her further submission is that by submitting representation dated July 13th, 2004 the petitioners requested the labour commissioner (central) to resolve the disputes keeping in view that in reality an employer employee relationship between them and the corporation always existed and hence the corporation was not entitled to refuse engage them in its outlets from November 9th, 2003. Counsel for the corporation submits that in view of certain policy decision of the Central Government decision was taken by the corporation that only women workers should be engaged for running some of its outlets. She further says that the parties concerned not only approached the labour commissioner that lodged industrial disputes, but also instituted a suit before the civil Court.
(3.) THERE is nothing to show that by any legal means any decision was taken by any competent authority those women workers should be engaged for running some of the outlets of the first corporation. This being the position, i am unable to see how the corporation could issue order directing its dealers operating the outlets to engage only women workers for running the outlets. Such decision and order of the corporation is clearly violative of the provisions in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. As I have said no special provision for the purpose has been made by the state. Only on the ground of sex man workers have deprived of the opportunity of working in certain outlets of the first corporation. In my view such a dispute on the ground of sex cannot be made.;