A two-Judge bench of Justices H K Sema and Markandey Katju said, “There is no infirmity in the order passed by the (Karnataka) High Court warranting our interference in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
While dismissing the appeal of Mittal, who challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court, the bench said, “We clarify that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or the High Court.”
The Metropolitan Court at Bangalore had taken cognisance of a complaint filed against Mittal under the sections 25 and 30 (3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 for allegedly showing laxity in safety and security of women workers deployed in night shifts.
Section 25, amended in 2002 by the State government, stipulates that the establishments should provide transport and adequate security to women employees working in night shirts.
Karnataka government advocate Anitha Shenoy had submitted that Mittal was responsible for the safety and security of the employee.