# UNION REPRESENTING THE WORKMEN OF MESSRS INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISES PVT. LTD v. MESSRS INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISES PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 493
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 274 of 1964
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-representing-the-workmen-of-messrs-international-franchises-pvt-ltd-v-3602
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Rule terminating emplayment of women automatlcally on marriage-Validity of rule-Industrial adjudication
whether
·C
should interfere.
D
E
F
·G
H
The respondent concern had a rule in
its packing and labelling department that if a woman employee got married her service would stand
automatically terminated. The appellant union raised an industrial dispute on this question and it was referred to
the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra. The Tribunal held that the rule was justified whereupon,
the appellant came to this Court by special leave.
The justification given on behalf of the respondent for the said rule
was that in the particular department \Vhere the rule ope-rated team v.1ork
was required for which regular attendance was necessaryi
and married
women, for obvious reasons, could
not be
expected to
be regular in
attendance. It was also contended for the respondent
that industrial
adjudication should not interfere with
the employer's
right to impose
. any condition in the matter of employment when he employs new work~
men.
Rule 5(3) of the Indian
Administrative Service
(Recruitment)
Rules. 1964, was referred to as carrying a similar condition.
HELD : (i) There was nothing to show that married women would
neceo;sarily he more likely to be absent than unmarried women or widows.
The only difference was that married women would ask for maternity leave.
This could be provided for by having a few extra women as leave reserve.
So far as efficiency was concerned it could hardly be said that married
women would be less efficient than
unmarried
ones or widows.
The
economic interest of the concern was also not affected in any material
way.
There was thus no good an!l convincing reason why such a rule
should continue in one department of the pharmaceutical industry. The
fact that such a rule existed in other concerns also \vas no justification.
if the rule could not be justified on its own merits.
The rule, therefore,
had to be abrogated. [495E, G-H; 496A·B, DJ
(ii) It is too late in the day to stress the absolute freedom of an empk1yer to impose any condition which he likes on labour. It is always
open to industrial adjudication to consider the conditions of employment
of labour and to vary them if it is found necessary. (496 E-FJ
{iii) Rule 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) ·
Rules only lays down that where an unmarried woman
marries subs<>-
quently, the Central Government may, if the maintenance of the effi.
ciency of the service so requires, call upon her to resign. This rule do.,.
not compel unmarried women to resign
on ma'rriage as a matter of
course as in the case of the respondent concern. (497 B-C)
Crv!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 274 of
1964.
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated May 31, 1963
of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in Reference (I.T.) No.
59 of 1963.
S. B. Naik and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellants.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji,
0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 1.
A. S. R. Chari, K. Rajendra Chaudhury, M. S. K. Aiyangar
and M. R. K. Pillai, for respondent No. 2.
A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, for interveners.

## Text

A BOMBAY
LABOUR
UNION
REPRESENTING
THE
WORKMEN OF MESSRS INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISES
PVT. LTD.
B
V.
MESSRS INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISES PVT. LTD
November 3, 1965
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Industrial Dispute-Rule terminating emplayment of women automatlcally on marriage-Validity of rule-Industrial adjudication
whether
·C
should interfere.
D
E
F
·G
H
The respondent concern had a rule in
its packing and labelling department that if a woman employee got married her service would stand
automatically terminated. The appellant union raised an industrial dispute on this question and it was referred to
the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra. The Tribunal held that the rule was justified whereupon,
the appellant came to this Court by special leave.
The justification given on behalf of the respondent for the said rule
was that in the particular department \Vhere the rule ope-rated team v.1ork
was required for which regular attendance was necessaryi
and married
women, for obvious reasons, could
not be
expected to
be regular in
attendance. It was also contended for the respondent
that industrial
adjudication should not interfere with
the employer's
right to impose
. any condition in the matter of employment when he employs new work~
men.
Rule 5(3) of the Indian
Administrative Service
(Recruitment)
Rules. 1964, was referred to as carrying a similar condition.
HELD : (i) There was nothing to show that married women would
neceo;sarily he more likely to be absent than unmarried women or widows.
The only difference was that married women would ask for maternity leave.
This could be provided for by having a few extra women as leave reserve.
So far as efficiency was concerned it could hardly be said that married
women would be less efficient than
unmarried
ones or widows.
The
economic interest of the concern was also not affected in any material
way.
There was thus no good an!l convincing reason why such a rule
should continue in one department of the pharmaceutical industry. The
fact that such a rule existed in other concerns also \vas no justification.
if the rule could not be justified on its own merits.
The rule, therefore,
had to be abrogated. [495E, G-H; 496A·B, DJ
(ii) It is too late in the day to stress the absolute freedom of an empk1yer to impose any condition which he likes on labour. It is always
open to industrial adjudication to consider the conditions of employment
of labour and to vary them if it is found necessary. (496 E-FJ
{iii) Rule 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) ·
Rules only lays down that where an unmarried woman
marries subs<>-
quently, the Central Government may, if the maintenance of the effi.
ciency of the service so requires, call upon her to resign. This rule do.,.
not compel unmarried women to resign
on ma'rriage as a matter of
course as in the case of the respondent concern. (497 B-C)
Crv!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 274 of
1964.
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated May 31, 1963
of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in Reference (I.T.) No.
59 of 1963.
S. B. Naik and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellants.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji,
0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 1.
A. S. R. Chari, K. Rajendra Chaudhury, M. S. K. Aiyangar
and M. R. K. Pillai, for respondent No. 2.
A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, for interveners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Wanchoo, J.
The only question raised in this appeal by speA
B
c
cial leave is the propriety of a service condition in the respondentconcem by which unmarried women in a particular department
have to resign on their getting married.
A dispute was raised
about this condition by the appellant-union on behalf of the
workmen and was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, MaharashD·
tra, in the following terms :-
"The existing bar on ladies that on their getting
married they have to leave the service of the company
should. be removed."
The respondent is a pharmaceutical concern.
It appears that
E
there is a rule in force in the respondent-concern according to
which if a lady workman gets married, her services are treated
as automatically terminated. It appears that such a rule is in force
in other pharmaceutical concerns in that region and the matter
came up on two occasions before industrial tribunals for adjudication with reference to other pharmaceutical concerns, and on F
both occasions the challenge by the workmen to such a rule failed.
On the first occasion the dispute was between the Boots Pure Drug
Co. (Indla) Limited v. Their Workmen(') and a similar rule was
upheld in 1956.
On the second occasion the dispute was between
Sandoz (India) Limited v.
Workmen employed under it( 2).
There
was
agitation
in
the
respondent
concern
in
G
connection with this rule and the present reference was eventually made in February 1963. The tribunal followed its earlier
decision in Sandoz Limited's case(2) and rejected the contention
that the rule be abrogated.
The appellant obtained special leave
to appeal from this Court; and that is how the matter has come up
before us.
R
(I) B.G.G. Part I -L, dated Jan. 26, 1966.
(2) (1962) Industrial Court Reporter 22.
!
(
'
•'
A
LABOUR. UNION V, INTL. FRANCHISES (Wanchoo, J.)
495
Ordinarily we see no reason for such a . rule requiring unmarried women to give up service on marriage, particularly when
it is not disputed that no such rule exists in other industries. It is
also not in dispute that no such rule exists in other departments.
of the respondent-concern itself and it is only in one department
that the rule is in force.
It can only be upheld if the respondent
B shows that there are good and convincing reasons why in this
particular department of the pharmaceutical industry it is necessary to have such a rule. The only reason given for enforcement
of this rule in this department of the respondent-concern is that
the ·workmen have to work in teams in this department and that
c requires that they should be regular and that this cannot be ex'
pected from married women for obvious reasons, and that there
is greater absenteeism among married women than among unmarried women or widows against whom there is no bar of this,
kind,
We are not impressed by these reasons for retaining a rule of
D
this kind.
The work in this department is not arduous for the
department is concerned with packing, labelling, putting in phials
and other work of this kind which has to be done after the pharmaceutical product has been manufactured.
Nor do we think
that because the work has to be done as a team it cannot be
done by married women.
We also feel that there is nothing to
:r,
show that married women would necessarily be more likely to be
absent than unmarried women or widows. If it is the presence
of children which may be said to account for greater absenteeism
ainong married women, that would be so more or less in the case
of widows with children also.
The fact that the work has got
to be done as a team and presence of all those workmen is ilecesF
sary, is in our opinion no disqualification so far as married women
are concerned, It cannot be disputed that even unmarried women
or widows are entitled to such leave as the respondent's rules
provide and they would be availing themselves of these leave facilities.
The only difference in the matter of absenteeism that we
can see between married women on the one hand and unmarried
G women and widows on the other is in the matter of maternity
leave which is an extra facility available to married women. To
this extent only, married women are more likely to be absent than
unmarried women and widows.
But such absence can in our
opinion be easily provided for by having a few extra women as
leave reserve and can thus hardly be a ground for such a drastic
H
rule as the present which requires an unmarried woman to resign
as soon as she marries. We have been unable to understand how
it ·can be said that it is necessary in the interest of efficient ope-
·'
496
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
ration and in the company's economic interest not to employ
married woinen.
So far as efficient operation is concerned, it
can hardly be said that married women would be less efficient
than unmarried women or widows so far as pure efficiency in work
is concerned, apart of course from the question of maternity leave.
As to the economic interest of the concern, we fail to see what
difference the employment of married women will make in that
.connection for the emoluments whether of .. n unmarried woman
.or of a married woman are the same.
The only difference between the two as we have already said is the burden on account
.of maternity leave.
But as to that the respondent contends that
A
B
the reason for having this rule is not the respondent's desire to
avoid the small burden to be placed on it on account of maternity
C
leave. If that is so, we fail to see any justification for a rule
•-Of this kind which requires an unmarried woman to
give up
service immediately she marries.
We are therefore of opinion
that there is no good and. convincing reason why such a rule
should continue in one department of the pharmaceutical indusD
try.
The fact that such a rule exists in other such concerns is no
justification, if the rule cannot be justified on its own merits.
Then. it is urged that the employer was free to impose any
·condition in the matter of employment when he employs a new
workman and that industrial adjudication should not interfere
with this right of the employer.
All that need be said in this
E
connection is that it is too late in the day now to stress the
absolute freedom of an employer to impose any condition which
he likes on labour.
It is always open to industrial adjudication
to consider the conditions of employment of labour and to vary
them if it is found necessary, unless the employer can justify an
extraordinary condition like this by reasons which carry conviction.
In the present case the reasons which the respondent ha~
advanced and which were the basis of the two decisions referred
to earlier do not commend themselves to us as sufficient for such
a rule.
We are therefore of opinion that such a rule should be
abrogated in the interest of social justice.
Lastly it is urged that a similar rule exists in certain govem-
·ment services and in this connection our attention is drawn in
particular to r. 5 ( 3) of the 1954 lndian Administrative Service
•{Recruitment) Rules.
That rule reads as follows :-
"No married woman shall be entitled as of right to
be appointed to the Service, and where a woman
appointed to the Service subsequently marries, the
Central Government may, if the maintenance of the
F
G
H
~
~
} •'1-
•
•
'
•
•
A
LABOUR UNION v. INTL. FRANCHISES (Wanchoo, J.)
497
efficiency of the Service so requires, call upon her to
resign."
It will be seen that this rule for the Indian Administrative Service
is not unqualified like the rule in force in the respondent's concern.
It only lays down that where an unmarried woman marries
B subsequently, the Central Government may, if the maintenance
of the efficiency of the Service so requires call upon her to resign.
Therefore this rule does not compel unmarried women to resign
on marriage as a matter of course as is the case in the respondentconcern.
It is only when the Central Government considers that
marriage has impaired the efficiency of the woman concerned that
c the Central Government may call upon her to resign. The rule
which is in force in the respondent-concern however assumes that
merely by marriage the efficiency of the woman-employee is impaired and such an assumption in our opinion is not justified. At
any rate this rule for the Indian Administrative Service which has
been brought to our notice only for purposes of comparison does
D not justify the drastic rule that we have in the present case where
an unmarried woman is
compelled to resign immediately she
marries without regard to her continued efficiency .
On a careful consideration of the reasons advanced on behalf
of the respondent in support of the existing rule we are of opinion
E
that the reasons do not justify such a drastic rule. We therefore
allow the appeal and direct that the rule in question in the form
in which it exists at present be abrogated. The abrogation shall
take effect from the date of this judgment.
The appellants will
get their costs from the respondent-company.
Appeal allowed.