2017 Supreme(Bom) 1628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Laxmi Subhash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Office of Directorate Through Water and Sanitation Support Organization (WSSO) Water Supply and Sanitation Department CIDCO Bhavan & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2402 of 2016
Decided On : 13-10-2017
For the Petitioner:Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B.V. Samant, AGP.
The entitlement to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act is subject to the specific provisions of the Act and the terms of the employment contract, and the timing of the leave application is crucial in determining eligibility.
Headnote:
Maternity Benefits Act - Contractual Employment - 1961 - Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 9(a), Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a contractual employee, sought to quash her termination order and claimed maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. She had been appointed on a contractual basis with specific terms and conditions, including limited leave entitlements. After being absent from work due to pregnancy complications, she was terminated from her services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's claim for maternity benefits was not valid as she had applied for medical leave, not maternity leave, and her contractual terms did not entitle her to extended leave. The court also noted that the benefits of maternity leave were not applicable to contractual employees until a later government circular, and therefore, the Petitioner's termination was upheld.
Issues: The key issues involved the Petitioner's entitlement to maternity benefits as a contractual employee, the distinction between medical and maternity leave, and the applicability of government circulars to her case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Maternity Benefits Act aims to provide special treatment to women during pregnancy and post-delivery, but the entitlement to maternity benefits is subject to the specific provisions of the Act and the terms of the employment contract. The court held that the Petitioner's claim for maternity benefits was not supported by her contractual terms and the timing of her leave application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination of the Petitioner's services and denying her claim for reinstatement and maternity benefits.
BHARTI H.DANGRE, J.
1. The Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing and setting aside of the termination order, dated 30th December, 2013 served upon the Petitioner on 12th February, 2014, thereby terminating her contractual services and she has further prayed that she be extended the benefits available to a female employee under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.
The Petition revolves around certain facts which are not disputed. The Petitioner was appointed as Document Consultant by an order dated 2nd April, 2013 appointing her on the said post with effect from 9th January, 2013 to 8th December, 2013 on consolidated salary of Rs.30,000/- per month on contractual basis. The said appointment order was accompanied with a contract containing the terms and conditions of the appointment and Petitioner had accepted the same by signing the contract. The terms and conditions clearly mentioned that the services of the Petitioner on contract basis are required in the Government of India funded Water and Sanitation Support Organization (WSSO) under National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) in the Water Supply and Sanitation department, Government of Maharashtra. The contractual assignment was for the period commencing from 9th January, 2013 and to continue till 8th December, 2013 and it was mentioned that the contractual period of 11 months of the assignment may be shortened or terminated any time during the period depending upon the need and progress of the programme. The contractual assignment contained clause No. (9) which reads as follows:
“He/She will be eligible for total 08 days of casual leave (C.L.) and 10 days of Medical/sick leave for a year or equivalent thereof for the proportionate length of the service rendered. However, for any assignment less than 3 months, no Medical/Sick leave will be entitled. Further, not more than 3 days of C.L. will be allowed at a time. In case of fresh agreement signed with the contractual person, the leave shall not carry over to the new contract period. No other kind of leave shall be admissible to the consultant.”
The initial contract was subsequently extended for another period of 11 months by order dated 26th December, 2013 and the appointment was continued from 10th December, 2013 to 9th November, 2014.
The Petitioner absented herself from work from 30th December, 2013 and on 8th January, 2014 she submitted an application for leave addressed to the Director, Water and Sanitation Support Organization, Belapur, thereby intimating that she was unable to attend the office since 1st January, 2014 due to her ill health. It was also informed that she had developed certain complications in her pregnancy and doctor had advised her complete bed-rest for next three months. Therefore, she requested for grant of medical leave from 1st January, 2014 to 7th April, 2014 considering the pregnancy complications. The said application was accompanied by certificate from a private Maternity Hospital at Navi Mumbai, where it was diagnosed that the Petitioner was carrying two months pregnancy and she was advised three months rest from 8th January, 2014. The Petitioner attempted to resume her services by submitting an application to the Director on 10th December, 2014, thereby intimating that the doctor had advised her to have rest due to complications in her pregnancy, therefore, she had sought leave for three months, however, now her health was good and therefore, as per the doctor's advice she intends to resume her duties. The Petitioner was served with an order of termination dated 12th February, 2014 informing that in view of her absence with effect from 30th December, 2013, her services were put to an end with effect from 30th December, 2013. She was not allowed to resume her duties and she preferred representation to the Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation Department on 13th February, 2014. In the said representation she mentioned that she had applied for medical leav