Considering Female Candidate For Employment Only In Absence Of Male Nominee Is Gender Discrimination: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that denial of employment to a female candidate only on the basis of gender is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that in exceptional cases, where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of...
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that denial of employment to a female candidate only on the basis of gender is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The court noted that in exceptional cases, where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, the company was denying employment.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “denial of employment to the female candidate is against the provision made in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Court further finds that in paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that in exceptional cases where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, denying the employment is against the mandate of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the fountain of the statute and this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others (supra).”
As per the factual matrix of the case, the Eastern Coalfields Limited entered into an agreement with the father of the Petitioner for use of the land/extracting the coal.
Thereafter, the proposal regarding the procurement of land was also initiated, but the General Manager advised the Agent/Manager to make an agreement with the land owners.
The father of the Petitioner then moved the Court by filing a writ petition in 2005, whereby the single judge bench directed the Eastern Coalfields Limited to pay compensation as well as employment to the dependent of the father of the petitioner, which was challenged by the Eastern Coalfields Limited by way of filing an LPA which was dismissed in 2013 with the direction to the Eastern Coalfields Limited to ascertain the amount of compensation and to pay the same along with the interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The Eastern Coalfields Limited was further directed to provide opportunity of employment to the dependents of the land losers within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
Notably, a portion of compensation was received, however, employment was not provided and the same was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court.
It was submitted by the Petitioner that the ground for denying employment to the female was based on the premise that only male candidates can be provided employment. Furthermore, it was submitted that an absolute bar on women seeking criteria or command appointments would violate the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner relied upon the judgement in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.
Alternatively, the Respondent submitted that employment in exchange land should be provided to males only in view of the limited employment opportunities in mining. Additionally, it was submitted that in exceptional cases where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment should be placed before the Board for its consideration.
The Court rejected Eastern Coalfields Limited's argument with respect to the age of the petitioner at the time of the acquisition of land while observing that there was no statement in the counter affidavit.
“even if the argument of the counsel for the Eastern Coalfields Limited was accepted that the petitioner was aged about 6 years at that time, the direction of the Division Bench was there to provide employment to the dependent of the petitioner and it was incumbent upon the Eastern Coalfields Limited to request the father of the petitioner to nominate another person for employment; the Eastern Coalfields Limited has failed on that point and, as such, that argument is not acceptable to the Court,” the Court stated.
Furthermore, the Court observed that Bharat Coking Coal Limited/Eastern Coalfields Limited had appointed the persons in dispute even 16 to 18 years after the land acquisition, and as such rejected this contention as well.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the plea was not raised in earlier litigation, which was affirmed up to the Division Bench and that order had attained finality.
“The land in question is situated in Santhal Pargana Division particularly in Jamtara district. Thus, the cause of action is also there in the State of Jharkhand,” the Court affirmed.
Accordingly, the letter issued by Eastern Coalfields Limited was quashed by the Court and the respondents were directed to pay the remaining compensation to the petitioner.
The Court further issued directions to the petitioner, namely, Shipra Tewary to be provided employment by the Eastern Coalfields Limited within the specified period.
Consequently, the petition was allowed.
Case Title: Shipra Tewary V. M/s Coal India Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 149