Recently, the single bench of Allahabad High Court headed by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, held that Maternity Benefit Act 1961 permits Women entitled to maternity leave even after giving birth to a Child.
Further, the Court held that this benefit could even be extended in a case of legal adoption of a child of less than three months.
"The Act of 1961 was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire," the Court observed.
Case Brief:
In the said matter, Court was hearing a petition moved by Saroj Kumari, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah, whereby, she has been denied maternity leave on the ground that maternity leave cannot be granted after childbirth. The order also stated that the petitioner can only apply for childcare leave under the Act.
The petitioner was posted as headmistress of the primary school of Heerapur in Etah district in the institution run by the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj. The service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.
Last year, in October the petitioner bore a girl child and after discharge from the hospital, she immediately applied for maternity leave for the period from October 18, 2022, to April 15, 2023. However, the school rejected it on the ground that annexures in support of maternity leave were incomplete.
The petitioner applied again for maternity leave on October 30, 2022, but it was rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah with remarks that the petitioner is not entitled to maternity leave after childbirth and is only eligible for child care leave and therefore, she can only apply for child care leave.
Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Before the Court, the petitioner stated that the 1961 Act was enacted by the parliament to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after childbirth and to provide maternity leave benefits and certain other benefits. Therefore, the denial of the maternity leave to the petitioner on the ground that the child was born, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the maternity leave is per se illegal and erroneous.
It was also submitted that the child care leave is distinct from the maternity benefit and operates in different fields and relegating the petitioner to avail of child care leave was totally unwarranted.
The Court examined the purpose of enactment of the 1961 Act, which is to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after childbirth to provide for maternity bebenefitsnd certain other benefits.
The Court further analysed Section 5 of the Act, which talks about payment of maternity benefits to a woman for the period of her actual absence beginning from the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day. The provision further provides for the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit.
Considering the preamble and the provisions of the 1961 Act, the Court observed,
"These provisions have been made by Parliament to ensure that the absence of a woman away from the place of work occasioned by the delivery of a child does not hinder her entitlement to receive wages for that period or for that matter for the period during which she should be granted leave in order to look after her child after the birth takes place.
"From the perusal of the Preamble of the Act, Section 5 (1), third proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 5, sub-section 4 of Section 5, it is more than apparent that the Maternity Benefit can be extended even after birth of a child. It can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child or less than three months."
However, the Court cautioned that maternity leave may not be granted for the entire 180 days or 26 weeks.
"Availability of child care leave to the petitioner or grant of the same cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit. Maternity benefit and child care leave both operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive."
Regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the 1961 Act, the Court was of the view that a purposive interpretation is required to be adopted since the grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the work place.
"It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of the child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are required to be construed in that perspective," the Court observed.
Therefore, the Court set aside the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah, who had refused to grant maternity leave to the petitioner after birth of child.
Further, the Education officer was directed to release the arrears of salary and pay the salary month to month to the petitioner as and when the same falls due.
Case Title - Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy