With increasing numbers of women entering the workforce in diverse occupations, crimes against women in the workplace and the denial of their employment rights are also likely to increase, especially in a society with a skewed gender ratio. Our judicial system must take notice of this new reality and dispense justice with sensitivity.

In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, Justice Manmohan Sarin held that an employer of a private hospital will be liable to pay compensation to a nurse subjected to sexual harassment and assault by a ward boy/sweeper, as a result of which she lost her right eye.

In Richu (Miss) vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.(2007 LLR 321), the victim, a nurse in a private nursing home, who was subjected to  sexual harassment and assault by a ward boy/sweeper sought compensation, free medical treatment and a suitable job for herself. She also sought revocation/cancellation of the license of the nursing home.

The management of the nursing home objected to this on the ground that a writ petition cannot be allowed against it as it is a private organisation. It also raised an objection on the ground that the petition raised disputed and complex questions of facts, which cannot be raised in a writ petition.

The  High Court held that since the government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was a party to the petition as a registering and licensing authority under the Delhi Nursing Home Act, a writ is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held by the Court that the government had the overall control and supervision for ensuring the efficient management and running of hospitals.

The management of the nursing home was held liable for negligence and failure to provide proper treatment and for omission to provide safe working environment, as well as for the acts of its ward boy.

The case is an apt example of dangers faced by women employees in private and public employment. That our judiciary is rising to the occasion and setting precedents that will go a long way in protecting rights and personal safety of vulnerable women employees is heartening.

Maternity Benefits - a Matter of Right for Contractual Women Workers

In another judgment by Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Mrs. Anita Goel vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (2007 LLR 479), the  High Court upheld the right of a contractual woman employee to be entitled to maternity benefits under S.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Mrs. Anita Goel was initially employed on a daily wage basis as a data entry operator with the respondent Board. After some time, she was employed on a contractual basis by the Board. She claimed maternity leave under S.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The respondent corporation denied this benefit on the grounds of her contractual status. However, it was held that this issue has been decided by the Supreme Court in favour of women employees in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster roll). Hence, women workers on contractual employment must be held to be entitled to the benefits of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

In an age in which most of the increase in employment is in the nature of contract work, employers tend to take advantage of the gaps and loopholes in labour laws to deny employment rights of their employees. In addition, women employees have almost no bargaining or protest power due to their inherently weak labour market position.

In such a situation, clear messages must be sent by the judiciary to all the parties in the employment relationship so as to make the ideal of `decent work` a reality for the Indian working class. This and other such judgments go a long way in reiterating important employment rights of one of the most vulnerable classes of employees in our society – working women.