Women employees have right to maternity leave: HP High Court
Contents News/Article Date: 13th June 2023
Relating to which Act: The Maternity Benefit Act 1961, and the Maternity Benefit Rules in each State.
Penalty under the Act: If any employer fails to pay any amount of maternity benefit to a woman entitled under this Act or discharges or dismisses such woman during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than three months
Applicable to which State: All the States and Establishments covered by the Maternity Benefit Act and Rules
Type: The Tribute News Report – A Division Bench Comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh rejected the plea of the government
Pertains to: The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to mother
Relevance of this news: Karma Global is in the business of HR Services, Payroll, Outsourcing and Regulatory Compliances right from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing, On-boarding, Employee Life Cycle, Statutory, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global does excellent work on providing ESI Services both to establishments as well as Insured Employees and in this respect, it will inform all its clients and insured employees about the many announcements that the Government has made in terms of expansion of ESI Scheme, so as to make it available in the remotest of places viz. 744 districts and also to make health facilities and medical colleges in progressive districts of our country further expanding post graduate medical seats.
And in this instance: As per the fact, a woman worker delivered a child on May 30, 1996 and after availing of maternity leave with effect from June 1, 1996, to August 31, 1996, (only three months), she resumed duty. It is only on account of pregnancy and subsequent delivery that she could only perform duty for 156 days against the minimum requirement of 240 days in a year.
The court observed, “The woman in the instant case was a daily wage employee at the time of her advanced pregnancy and could not have been compelled to undertake hard labour. The maternity leave is a fundamental human right of the respondent, which could not have been denied.”
Subject: Women employees have right to maternity leave: HP High Court
Appended is the complete news item
Women employees have right to maternity leave: HP High Court
Says right to life under Article 21 includes right to motherhood
The HP High Court held this while dealing with a petition challenging the decision of the state government to decline the benefit of maternity leave and thereafter consequential benefit of conferment of work-charge status on the completion of eight years’ service. –
Every woman employee whether appointed on regular, contractual, ad hoc or tenure/ temporary basis has a fundamental right to a reasonable duration of maternity leave (paternity leave in case of a male employee), child care leave (CCL) to promote motherhood and child care under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 42.
The HP High Court held this while dealing with a petition challenging the decision of the state government to decline the benefit of maternity leave and thereafter consequential benefit of conferment of work-charge status on the completion of eight years’ service.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh rejected the plea of the government and observed, “The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to mother. To become a mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Therefore, whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of a child to a woman, who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her, must realise the physical difficulties that a working woman faces in performing duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in her womb or while rearing up the child after birth.”
As per the fact, a woman worker delivered a child on May 30, 1996 and after availing of maternity leave with effect from June 1, 1996, to August 31, 1996, (only three months), she resumed duty. It is only on account of pregnancy and subsequent delivery that she could only perform duty for 156 days against the minimum requirement of 240 days in a year.
The court observed, “The woman in the instant case was a daily wage employee at the time of her advanced pregnancy and could not have been compelled to undertake hard labour. The maternity leave is a fundamental human right of the respondent, which could not have been denied.”