Case: Bombay Labour Union Representing The Workmen Of Messrs Vs. Messrs International Franchises Pvt. Ltd

The respondent is a pharmaceutical concern. It appears that 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 both occasions the challenge by the workmen to such a rule failed. On the first occasion the dispute was between Boots Pure Durg Co. (India) Limited v. Their Workmen, B. G. G. Part I-L dated 26-1-1956 and a similar rule was upheld in 1956. On the second occasion the dispute was between Sandoz (India) Ltd. Bombay v. Workmen employed under it, (1962) Industrial Court Reporter 22 There was agitation in the respondent concern in connection with this rule and the present reference was eventually made in February 1963. The tribunal followed its earlier decision in Sandoz Limiteds case 1962 Industrial Court Reporter 22 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.

Reasoning:
2. 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 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 requires that they should be regular and that this cannot be expected 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 thiswill be seen that this rule for the Indian Administrative Service is not unqualified like the rule in force in the respondents concern. It only lays down that where an unmarried woman marries 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 respondent-concern. It is only when the Central Government considers that marriage has impaired the efficiency of the woman concerned that 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 not justify the drastic rule that we have in the in the present case where an unmarried woman is compelled to resign immediately she marries without regard to her continued efficiency.6. On a careful consideration of the reasons advanced on behalf on the respondent in support of the existing rule we are of opinion 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 cost from the respondent company.