IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24047 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SIMI AMBILY S., W/O. AJAY KUMAR, 'THIRUVATHIRA', MAVELI WARD, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, (P & A/E.D.P.), THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.V.K.KRISHNA MENON, SC FOR KMML. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24047 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P12. 2. Petitioner claims to be the dependant of a land acquisition evictee of the respondent company. By Ext.P12, the company invited applications for the post of Junior Worker specifying inter alia that only males will be eligible. Irrespective of the aforesaid specification, petitioner submitted Ext.P16 application and filed this writ petition complaining mainly of the exclusion of females and also contending that several females have already been appointed by the respondent Company in the workmen category. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, she is a land acquisition evictee, even according to the standing counsel for the company, they are eligible for certain preferences. However, according to the standing counsel, the plant has been characterised as a hazardous chemical plant running on three shifts. It is therefore stated that in the plant, only males are appointed in the Junior Workmen category. WPC No. 24047/10 :2 : 4. In my view, if the nature of the duties that are to be discharged and the working pattern in the plant does not justify employment of women, there is nothing preventing the Company from excluding women from the post of Junior Worker. Even otherwise, in a continuous process, industry like the respondent, restrictions imposed under Section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948 will also be applicable. In that view of the matter also, the petitioner cannot object to the restriction imposed in Ext.P12 notification. 5. In so far as Ext.P14 list of females, who have been appointed by the Company in the workmen category are concerned, standing counsel for the Company also accepts the fact that in areas, wherever it is permissible, ladies are appointed. Therefore, Ext.P14 does not demonstrate that action of the Company is discriminatory. In that view of the matter, if the Company has not called the petitioner for selection in response to Ext.P16 application made, this Court cannot find fault with it. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp