1. Contractual employee — Claim for maternity benefits under Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 — Denial of benefits beyond the contractual tenure. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Dr. Kavita Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 5010 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Important Points
Contractual employees are entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, even after the expiration of their contracts, and the Act overrides any agreement or contract of service inconsistent with its provisions.
Subject
Employment Law - Maternity Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
Maternity Benefits - Contractual Employment - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, Section 5, Section 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, particularly Section 5 and Section 12, and their interpretation in the context of contractual employment. The court highlighted the entitlement of contractual employees to maternity benefits and the continuation of such benefits beyond the contractual period. The court emphasized the overriding effect of the Act on any agreement or contract of service and ruled in favor of the appellant's entitlement to full maternity benefits despite the expiration of her contract.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a pathology doctor, sought maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, after her contractual employment ended. The employer rejected her claim based on the expiration of her contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that she was entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, even after the expiration of her contract. The court emphasized the entitlement criteria specified in Section 5(2) of the Act and the overriding effect of the Act on any agreement or contract of service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as a contractual employee, was entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, beyond the duration of her contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, particularly Section 5 and Section 12, and their application to contractual employment. The court emphasized the entitlement of contractual employees to maternity benefits and the continuation of such benefits beyond the contractual period, highlighting the overriding effect of the Act on any agreement or contract of service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, directing the employer to extend full maternity benefits to the appellant in accordance with Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, despite the expiration of her contract. The orders rejecting the appellant's claim were quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv., Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv., Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Rachita Garg, Adv., Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Debopriyo Moulik, Adv., Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv., Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv., Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Rachita Garg, Adv., Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Debopriyo Moulik, Adv., Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether maternity benefits under the 1961 Act are coterminous with the employment contract or extend beyond the contractual period upon fulfillment of eligibility criteria. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Analysis of Section 12(2)(a) and Section 27 of the 1961 Act — Benefits survive cessation of employment — Overriding effect of statute over contracts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Maternity benefits accrue upon fulfillment of Section 5(2) and are not coterminous with employment tenure, overriding any inconsistent contractual terms. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court and Tribunal orders set aside — Employer directed to grant full maternity benefits under Sections 5 and 8 of the 1961 Act. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Are contractual or casual employees entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?
Yes. The court held that the Act does not distinguish between regular and contractual or casual employees. Once the eligibility criteria under Section 5(2) are met, such employees are entitled to maternity benefits. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Can maternity benefits extend beyond the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract?
Yes. Maternity benefits are not coterminous with employment tenure. Under Section 12(2)(a) and Section 27, benefits can survive the cessation of employment, and the law creates a legal fiction of continued employment for the purpose of availing these benefits. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 )
8. What is the legal effect of a contract clause that limits maternity benefits to the duration of the contract?
Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, provides that the provisions of the Act have overriding effect over any award, agreement, or contract of service that is inconsistent with the statute. (Para 7 , 9 )
9. Does terminating a contract to avoid paying maternity benefits constitute an unlawful discharge?
Yes. Any attempt by an employer to enforce a contract duration term to deny benefits after the employee has fulfilled eligibility criteria constitutes a discharge, which is prohibited under Section 12(2)(a) of the 1961 Act. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
The appellant, a pathology doctor, was appointed as Senior Resident (Pathology) in Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, an autonomous institute under the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, on 6th June 2004. Her appointment letter specified that it was purely temporary and as per the residency scheme, such appointment was initially to be for a period of one year, extendable on yearly basis upto a maximum of three years. Her date of joining was 12th June 2014. Her services were extended twice, for one year period each, on 12th June 2015 and 12th June 2016. Her last extension was for the period of one year from 12th June 2016 to 11th June 2017. On 24th May 2017, she had applied for maternity benefits from 1st June 2017, in terms of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“the 1961 Act”). The employer, however, informed her that only 11 days of maternity benefits could be granted since, as per the residency scheme, her tenure came to an end on 11th June 2017 and no further extension was allowed/permissible under the applicable rules.
2. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said action before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and subsequently failed in the High Court also, on the very same reasoning based on which the employer had rejected her claim of maternity benefits for a total of 26 weeks in terms of the 1961 Act. The reasoning of the High Court would appear from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment delivered on 19th August 2019, and we quote below the said two paragraphs:
“8. Reliance placed on Section 5(2) of the said Act by the petitioner to claim that once the female employee has rendered service for 180 days continuously prior to the expected date of delivery, she would be entitled to maternity benefit is, in our view, irrelevant, since the respondents have not denied the maternity benefit to the petitioner. The only issue is whether she would be entitled to such benefit after 11.6.2017, when her contract of employment ended.
9. Sub section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act provides that subject to provisions of the Act, every women should be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of average daily wage “for the period of her actual absence ......” The use of the expression “actual absence” presupposes that but for the maternity leave, the women employee would be expected to remain “present”. However, where the contractual employment is time bound with an outer limit, and the same comes to an end during the period of pregnancy, or even after child birth, but during the period when the women employee would be entitled to avail of maternity benefits under the Act, there would be no question of the women employee remaining actually “absent”, since she would not be expected to remain present post the termination of her contractual employment. The purpose of the aforesaid Act is not to extend the period of the contract for which the woman employee is in service. If the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the petitioner should be granted leave for 180 days, despite her contract expiring within a few days from the start of maternity leave, it would clearly tantamount to unintended extension of the contractual employment.”
3. It is this judgment which is assailed before us. For effective adjudication of this appeal, we reproduce below the following provisions of the 1961 Act:
“5. Right to payment of maternity benefit. (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 subsection, the average daily wage means the average of the woman’s wages payab
