Bombay High Court Ruling: Should Marital Status Affect Job Opportunities for Women?

Hello Professional HR & Business Veterans,

Please find attached a watchdog article in DNA regarding the Bombay High Court Judgment on Being Married Not Grounds for Denying Job to Daughter.

Regards

Government and PSUs keep the welfare of their employees very high on their agenda.

However, the purpose of not including married daughters in the definition of "Family" for the benefit of LTC/LLTC, Medical facilities, etc., is based on the social and cultural realities, wherein married daughters leave their parental house and become a part of another family, that of their in-laws.

This in no way was intended to be prejudicial to the interest of the female sex but was a mere conformity with the prevailing social norms and systems.

However, in this particular case, as can be seen, the candidate was unmarried at the time of application; and by the time the actual recruitment took place, after 4 years, she had gotten married.

The authorities could have ignored this fact or chosen to allow it as a special case. However, by terminating the employee, they have not only brought misery to their organization but have now also opened a floodgate for allowing other facilities, such as Medical, LTC/LLTC, etc., to married daughters.

This is a perfect example of the insensitivities of the HR concerned and the consequences of HR failures. Instead of trying to enforce rules with a tyrannical mindset, HRs should remember that rules are made to help and facilitate a process and not as a stick to beat the employees.

Had the concerned HR processed the matter as a "special case due to the delay caused in the implementation of the appointment" and "not to be cited as a precedence" and got it approved by the competent authority, the matter could have been resolved amicably.

Warm regards.

Dear All,

The date of application was disregarded, and the date of joining was taken into consideration, causing the confusion. The case would not have come up if the officials had applied their minds before hiring her. However, once employed, it was crucial to think carefully before considering termination.

We have encountered cases where employees falsify documents to secure employment and remain in the position until their misconduct is discovered. The moral of the story is "THINK BEFORE YOU ACT."

Thanks for the post.

Regards, M.V. KANNAN

It seems that the Law of Inheritance has a positive effect on the theme of the judgment. In Islam, a married girl also has a share in the net wealth of her deceased parents. As such, it doesn't surprise me when, as per the court order, the termination order was found to be bad in law, and the Government's appeal was not sustainable in the opinion of the court.

It gives us a lesson that HR should be very careful in the interpretation of service rules, and if necessary, they should seek legal opinion before making a decision.

Hi Dilip,

Thanks for bringing the case to this forum.

Yes, I agree with the comments of some members about the shortcomings at the HR end and the resulting court intervention.

The nutshell of the case is that although some rules and policies are made for the effective running of an organization and to avoid wasting time in decision-making, the concerned members should view these rules and policies as guiding factors. They must understand the severity and uniqueness of each individual case instead of working with a fixed mindset.

I also request other members to share any similar cases they may know about on this forum.

Best Regards,

Deepak Jain