The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Uttarakhand):The Uttarakhand High Court recently emphasized that pregnancy should not be a reason to deny a woman her rightful employment, setting a precedent for gender equality in the workplace. In a significant ruling, Justice Pankaj Purohit overturned an order that had prevented a pregnant woman from joining her job as a Nursing Officer at B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Nainital. The woman, who was 13 weeks pregnant, had been deemed “temporarily unfit” due to her condition, following a directive in the Gazette of India which labels women pregnant for 12 weeks or more as such until post-delivery.
Justice Purohit highlighted the discriminatory nature of this policy, asserting that denying employment based on pregnancy violates constitutional rights and is indicative of gender bias. He stressed that such actions conflict with the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Court’s decision reinforces the understanding that maternity leave is a fundamental right and that pregnancy should not preclude women from joining their posts.
In another related ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under Justice Suvir Sehgal, addressed the issue of arbitrating disputes involving state authorities. The court criticized the frivolous objections raised by the Punjab Heritage and Tourism Promotion Board against the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute with M/s Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. The objections were deemed as attempts to undermine the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which aims for prompt and efficient dispute resolution. Justice Sehgal appointed former Judge Tejinder Singh Dhindsa as the sole arbitrator, emphasizing the need for impartial and independent dispute resolution in accordance with the Act.
These judgments reflect a growing judicial recognition of women’s rights in the workplace and the importance of fair dispute resolution mechanisms. They underscore the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and the principles of justice, equality, and non-discrimination.
Counsel for the Uttarakhand case included Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht for the State. Advocates Abhinav Sood and Anmol Gupta represented the petitioner in the Punjab and Haryana case, while Sr. Advocate Dharam Vir Sharma and Advocate Pooja Yadav appeared for the respondent.
