AUTHOR:- Ayushi Mendhiratta, Panjab University
CASE ANALYSIS ON:-
DR. KAVITA YADAV V/S THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ORS. (2023)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (SC) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5010/2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5010/2023
DECIDED ON: 17 /8/23
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE – The case revolves around the enabling provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, empowering women to obtain paid leave during or after their pregnancy. The case set a legal precedent in providing paid leave benefits to contractually employed women. Consequently, it upheld fundamental rights, such as Article 14 (right to Equality), Article 16 (right against discrimination), and Article 21 (right to live a dignified life). Besides this, it promoted gender equality in India, along with fair labor practices, to halt the exploitation of women based on their nature of work.
FACTS OF THE CASE:- Dr. Kavita, a designated pathology doctor, was employed on a contractual basis in Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, for a term of 3 years ( 12 June 2014 – 11 June 2017). During her last period of extension, she applied for maternity leave as per Section 5 of the Act on 24th May 2017. She availed the maternity benefits from 1st June to 11th June. As the contractual agreement terminated on 12th June, she was denied to avail further maternity benefits.
After the denial of benefits, she filed a complaint in the Central Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently, after receiving rejection, she filed a petition in the High Court. The court dismissed the claim on the ground that, as per Section 5 (1) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, a woman is entitled to claim maternity benefit on the period of her ‘Actual Absence’ from work where she is expected to be present. However, if the employment was on a contract or temporary basis, the denial of benefits after the termination of the contract is justified. The court also contended that the unnecessary extension of maternity benefits beyond the period of contract would be unjustified.
Thus, Dr. Kavita filed a petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUES:- Whether the statutory benefit of paid leave under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 for 26 weeks extends beyond the period of the contractual agreement?
2) Whether the benefit already availed under the act can be denied by the employer on the termination of the contract?
ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT – 1) The counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the woman was subjected to maternity benefits as envisaged under the act, as she fulfilled the eligibility criteria to work for 80 days in 12 months, which should precede the date of her expected delivery mentioned under the aforesaid act.
2) Before this, in her 1st pregnancy, the employer did extend the paid leave benefit to the appellant.
3)Besides this, section 12 (2) (a) of the act explicitly protects benefits to a woman regardless of the dismal of her employment.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT – The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent argued that as per Section 5 (1) of the Act, the employee ( contractual ) cannot claim the benefit of maternity leave after the termination of her employment period.
She stated that the act enables the benefit to be granted on her actual absence from work, where she is expected to be present. After the contract of the employment period lapsed, she is not expected to be working under the same organisation.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS:- “ Sec 5. Right to payment of maternity benefit.—2 [(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.] Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, the average daily wage means the average of the woman’s wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity, 3 [the minimum rate of wage fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) or ten rupees, whichever is the highest].
(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than 4 [eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery
Provided that the qualifying period of 1 [eighty days] aforesaid shall not apply to a woman who has immigrated into the State of Assam and was pregnant at the time of the immigration. Explanation.—For the purpose of calculating under this sub-section the days on which a woman has actually worked in the establishment, 2 [the days for which she has been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law for the time being in force to be holidays with wages] during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account.
Sec 12. Dismissal during the absence of pregnancy.- (2) (a) The discharge or dismissal of a woman at any time during her pregnancy, if the woman but for such discharge or dismissal would have been entitled to maternity benefit or medical bonus referred to in section 8, shall not have the effect of depriving her of the maternity benefit or medical bonus: Provided that where the dismissal is for any prescribed gross misconduct, the employer may, by order in writing communicated to the woman, deprive her of the maternity benefit or medical bonus or both. ”
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: The Apex Court passed the judgment in favor of Dr. Kavita , dismissing the verdict delivered by the High Court. The court held that the purpose of the act is to preserve women’s health and dignity during pregnancy. The court gave a comprehensive reading of all the relevant sections of the statutory provision and concluded that once a woman satisfies the eligibility criteria for availing benefit under sec 5(1) of the Act, the employer is obliged to provide full maternity benefits despite the termination period of her contract. The court gave a broader meaning to the term ‘Discharge’ to include discharge on cessation of the contractual period. The verdict delivered reflected in its judgment the case of DEEPIKA SINGH VS CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS ( 2022) with regards to maternity leave.
Thus, the pronouncement backed the arguments demonstrated by the appellant, thereby declaring that the woman is entitled to claim the maternity benefit under the statute for the period of 26 weeks despite the conclusion of her employment period.
ANALYSIS OF THE AUTHOR: The author of the article concurs with the judgment of the court. Providing maternity benefits beyond the period of contractual agreement, on satisfying the prerequisites of the act, will promote a path towards gender equality by eliminating any discrimination in job or employment.
Further, the judgment serves a social relevance in today’s time by protecting the working rights, job opportunities, reinforcing maternal welfare, and assurance of Fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21.
Nevertheless, it creates an obligation on the employer to provide financial benefits to the employee despite the end of the employment period. Employers will be more cautious while employing casual or contractual labourers to avoid unnecessary financial burden. Providing full-term benefits for the period of 26 weeks will create an impact on the budget and recruiting policies of the company or organisation.
Thus, the verdict, while protecting gender and social justice, creates a financial and administrative burden on employers.
CONCLUSION:- The ruling enforced equality for all workers, whether casual or contractual, to avail the benefits during the pregnancy period. The act ensured that women do not feel overburdened or restrained during their pregnancy. The act promises wage security to women to recover from postpartum, improving the overall well-being of a worker.
Moreover, it entitles a woman to avail medical bonus in addition to the payment of wages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:-
