The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly the protection of women employees during the maternity period.

By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai and the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 11 April 2014 and 13 February 2015, respectively, granting interim relief to the Respondent No.1 in the complaint filed by her.

2. Respondent No.1 was working as a Reporter with the Petitioner, which is engaged in the business of media and broadcasting. Her services were terminated by the Petitioner on 19 August 2012. She filed a Complaint (ULP) No.220 of 2012 in Labour Court, Mumbai, complaining of unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (d),(e) & (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. According to her, she was working with the respondents for more than two years, however, she was not given benefits due to her. She resumed duty on 7 May 2012 after her marriage and was surprised to receive a show cause notice on 30 March 2012. On 7 May 2012, respondent No.3 (as numbered in the complaint) was at the relevant time working as Manager, Human Resources. According to the Respondent No.1, she became pregnant in the month of June 2012 and she intimated the said fact to Respondent No.3 on 17 July 2012. Thereafter she received a letter from Respondent No.2 stating that her performance apprisal report was not upto the mark. On 28 July 2012, she received a letter from respondent No.2 for training a programme. It was her case that some time in August 2012 due to extreme stress she fainted and was rushed to the hospital. She submitted a leave application on 3 August 2012 however her leave application was refused. Thereafter her services were terminated on 19 August 2012. On the basis of these allegations, respondent No.1 filed the complaint alleging unfair labour practices. Respondent No.1 also took out an application for interim relief.

3. The petitioner filed its say and contested the complaint and the application. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was not a workman and no relief could be granted to her. It was contended that the performance of respondent No.1 was not good and she was given warnings and memos to that effect. In spite of reminding her, her performance did not improve. It was contended that the case made out by Respondent No.1 of harassment, was bogus. It was also contended that, after receiving a notice to improve her performance, an application was made on the ground that she was unwell so as to avoid further responsibility. It was contended that ground of pregnancy was putforth as an excuse to cover the unsatisfactory work.

4. The Labour Court held that services of the Respondent No.1 could not have been terminated in view of the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, so also her termination was in violation of Section 28F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court accordingly disposed of the application for interim relief by directing the Petitioner to allow the Respondent No.1 to resume duty or deposit 50% of the wages every month till disposal of the complaint on merits. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the order passed by the Labour Court by way of Revision Application No.50 of 2014. The Revisional Court, after considering the submissions, held that prima facie nothing is shown that Respondent No.1, who was working as a Reporter, was doing any supervisory work. The Industrial Court also confirmed the finding of the Labour Court that, prima facie, the termination of Respondent No.1 was in violation of the legal position, particularly, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and accordingly by order dated 13 February 2015, dismissed the revision application.

5. As far as the contention that Respondent No.1 is not a 'workman', the Industrial Court has rightly observed that nothing is placed on record by the Petitioner to show that Respondent No.1 was performing any supervisory duties. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 was employed as a Reporter and unless contrary material was produced by the Petitioner to show that she was not a workman, no error was comm