Case at a Glance
After her husband, a toddy shop worker in Thrissur district, died in 2024, the petitioner sought compassionate employment in the same shop under the 2009 industrial settlement for toddy workers. She was turned away only because Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 bars the employment of women in any capacity in a toddy shop. The Kerala High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s test in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2007) 12 SC CK 0023 and following its own decision in Sanuja v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd., declared Rule 7(37) unconstitutional as violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. Her claim is to be considered without reference to the rule.
The petitioner’s husband worked at Toddy Shop No. 148, Ponjanam, in the Irinjalakuda Range of Thrissur district, and died in May 2024. She sought compassionate appointment in that shop under the 2009 revised industrial settlement for toddy tapping workers in Kerala, signed before an Additional Labour Commissioner. She was refused solely on the basis of Rule 7(37) of the 2002 Rules, which prohibits employing women in any capacity in a toddy shop. After a representation of 17 July 2024 she challenged the rule.
The State defended the rule as protecting women from exploitation and harassment, pointing out that toddy shops are often in remote areas. It argued that Article 14 permits reasonable classification, that the liquor trade is res extra commercium, and that statutes carry a presumption of constitutionality. The shop licensee supported the State and argued that toddy shops differ from foreign liquor shops, which the earlier Sanuja ruling had dealt with.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a blanket rule barring women from being employed in any capacity in toddy shops constitutionally valid?
Protect Women at Work — Don’t Bar Them From It
Justice Gopinath P. applied the two-pronged test from Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India: whether the interference is justified in principle and whether it is proportionate. Rule 7(37) met neither. Quoting Anuj Garg, the Court noted that “Instead of prohibiting women employment in the bars altogether the State should focus…” on ensuring their safety. It followed Sanuja v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd., where the same kind of bar was held unsustainable for foreign liquor shops, and referred to Dhanyamol v. State of Kerala.
The State’s authorities were distinguished. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, (1958) 04 SC CK 0026 permits reasonable classification but does not save a rule that is neither justified nor proportionate; C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India, (1979) 09 SC CK 0021 allows selectivity only where differentiation is “demonstrable”, and none was shown. Cases such as Kerala Public Service Commission v. Manjusha and A.M. Shaila v. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust turned on specific posts like night watchmen and shore work. Following Anuj Garg, the Court held that the res extra commercium doctrine cannot be invoked where the State regulates, rather than prohibits, the liquor trade.
What the Court Actually Held
- Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, which bars women from employment in toddy shops, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.
- Any licence condition based on Rule 7(37) also falls.
- The State’s duty to keep women safe at work cannot be met by barring them from occupations they choose.
- The petitioner’s claim for employment is to be considered without reference to Rule 7(37); the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It removes a sex-based employment bar in a regulated trade that employs many workers in Kerala.
- It extends the reasoning of Anuj Garg and Sanuja from bars and beverage outlets to toddy shops.
- It matters for widows and dependants seeking compassionate appointment under toddy-sector settlements.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Women Workers and Families
- A woman cannot now be refused a toddy shop job only on the ground of Rule 7(37).
- Dependants seeking compassionate employment under the toddy workers’ settlement can ask for their claims to be decided on merits.
For Counsel
- The Anuj Garg test of justification and proportionality is the starting point against protective but exclusionary rules.
- The res extra commercium argument does not help the State where it regulates rather than prohibits the trade.
Key Takeaways
- Blanket exclusion of women from toddy shop work is unconstitutional.
- Safety concerns must be met by safeguards, not by exclusion.
- Precedents on specific posts such as night watchmen do not justify a trade-wide ban.
- The judgment gives no fixed timeline for reconsidering the petitioner’s claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which rule was struck down?
Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, which barred the employment of women in any capacity in a toddy shop.
Does this decide that the petitioner gets the job?
No. The Court directed that her claim be considered without reference to Rule 7(37); it did not itself order her appointment.
Which Supreme Court case was central?
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, which struck down a similar bar on women working in bars.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court has made clear that protecting women cannot mean shutting them out of lawful work. A widow who wanted the job her husband held is now entitled to have her claim decided like anyone else’s.
Practical takeaway: Employers and licensees in Kerala’s toddy sector can no longer rely on Rule 7(37) to refuse employment to women.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com