Contractual Employees Entitled to Full Maternity Benefits Irrespective of Contract Expiry, Rules Delhi High Court

New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of women in the workforce, the Delhi High Court has held that female employees engaged on a contractual basis are entitled to the full benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, even if their contract expires during the period for which maternity leave is sought.

A Division Bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Shalinder Kaur dismissed an appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which challenged a Single Judge's order directing the grant of maternity benefits for 26 weeks to a contractual stenographer, Ms. Rehmat Fatima , employed with the Delhi State Consumer Forum. The government had argued that its liability to pay wages ceased upon the expiry of her contractual term.

Background of the Case

Ms. Rehmat Fatima was appointed as a stenographer on a contractual basis in 2013 and her term was extended periodically, allowing her to render over five years of service. On February 28, 2018, while her contract was still active (set to expire on March 31, 2018), she applied for 180 days of maternity leave starting from March 1, 2018.

The appellants, including the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, denied her request for benefits beyond the contract expiry date of March 31, 2018. This led Ms. Fatima to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking maternity benefits and continuation of her service.

The Single Judge, in an order dated October 6, 2023, allowed the prayer for maternity benefits, directing the appellants to provide 26 weeks of medical, monetary, and other benefits as per the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. However, the plea for re-engagement was rejected. The State government challenged only the direction regarding maternity benefits in the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

Arguments Presented

The appellants contended that they could not be mandated to pay wages for the maternity leave period that extended beyond Ms. Fatima 's contractual expiry date of March 31, 2018. They argued that liability was limited to the contract duration.

Conversely, the respondent, Ms. Fatima , through her counsel, supported the Single Judge's order, asserting that she was entitled to all benefits under the Act, having applied for leave while her contract was subsisting.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Division Bench, after hearing arguments, found the appeal to be "wholly misconceived" and "in the teeth of various decisions of the Apex Court". The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that women working on a contractual basis are entitled to maternity benefits under the Act, even if these benefits extend beyond the duration of their contractual engagement.

Referring to the Single Judge's reasoning, the Bench highlighted the reliance placed on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which the Single Judge interpreted as creating a legal fiction ensuring the benefits accrue to the employee despite the contract ending. The Single Judge had also pointed out that denying such benefits amounted to a 'discharge' under Section 12(2)(a) of the Act, which is impermissible during the protected period due to pregnancy unless on grounds of gross misconduct.

The High Court bench concurred with the Single Judge's interpretation, stating, "Having perused Section 5 of the Act, we see no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge." They reiterated that the entitlement to benefits under the Act does not cease merely because the contractual term expires during the maternity period.

The Bench also expressed surprise at the Delhi government pursuing such an appeal, especially given its stated commitment to promoting women's welfare through schemes like the 'Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojna'.

Decision and Implications

Finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's direction on maternity benefits, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal (LPA 199/2024) along with all pending applications. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants, directed to be paid to the respondent within four weeks.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of employment, whether permanent or contractual, does not detract from a woman employee's right to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It underscores the Act's objective as a social welfare legislation aimed at protecting the health and well-being of women employees and their children, aligning with constitutional ideals and settled Supreme Court precedents.