Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.R. Gavai, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Archana D/o Nanabhau Dahifale - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra And Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3491 of 2018
Decided On : 19-10-2018
Rutuja Shinde, Adv., Devendra Dilip Pawar, Adv., V.M. Mali, Adv.
Headnote:
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Maternity leave - Grant of maternity benefits - Petitioner was working as a Project Officer with respondent - Institute on contractual basis - Petitioners contract was renewed for period of 11 months on the consolidated monthly honorarium per month - By an application petitioner requested for permission from respondent to proceed on maternity leave for period tentatively till the month - Petitioner was permitted to proceed on maternity leave - Petitioner was on maternity leave -Petitioner by letter requested the respondent to release her salary during maternity leave period - Petitioner pointed out that respondent is not complying with Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Petitioner also made a representation to Minister, Social Justice Department of the respondent bringing to his notice failure on part of respondent in complying with provisions of said Act - Petitioner having received no response, is constrained to file this Petition - Whether petitioner who is admittedly working on contractual basis as a Project Officer on consolidated monthly honorarium is entitled to benefits – Held, In above view of the matter, court of the opinion that in the light of principles laid down by this Court in Minis case (supra) contention raised that petitioners herein are entitled only to 90 days of maternity leave cannot be countenanced - Petitioners herein will also be entitled to maternity leave as is due to women employees under Service Rules applicable to State and Central Government servants and to women employees under Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - In the above view of matter, the impugned orders are set aside - In court opinion, provisions so construed, would indicate that not only is woman employee assured of benefits under the said Act, but if rules are framed by the State Government providing for benefits which are more favourable, then petitioner would be entitled to benefits which are more favourable than what is provided under the said Act - In court opinion, action of respondents in denying claim of the petitioner for grant of maternity benefits during her maternity leave period runs contrary to legislative mandate flowing from provisions of the said Act - Since this Court has already held that benevolent object of grant of 180 days maternity leave to woman employees cannot be and should not be limited to women Government servants of State of Maharashtra only, same are also extended to petitioner who is working as a Project Officer with respondent on contractual basis - Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Karnik, J.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard by consent of the parties.
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate directions to the respondent No.2 Director General, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Research and Training Institute, Pune, to pay the salaries of the petitioner on the pay scale of Rs.25,000/- per month for the period of her maternity leave, from 13th June, 2017 to 30th November, 2017.
4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are thus :
The petitioner was working as a Project Officer with the respondent No.2 - Institute from the year 2015 on contractual basis. The petitioner's contract was renewed for the period of 11 months from 3rd June, 2017 to 2nd May, 2018 on the consolidated monthly honorarium of Rs.25,000/- per month. By an application dated 12th June, 2017, the petitioner requested for permission from the respondent No.2 to proceed on maternity leave for the period from 13th June, 2017 tentatively till the month of November, 2017. The petitioner was permitted to proceed on maternity leave. The petitioner was on maternity leave for the period from 13th June, 2017 to 30th November, 2017.
5. The petitioner by letter dated 13th December, 2017 requested the respondent No.2 to release her salary during the maternity leave period. The petitioner pointed out that the respondent No.2 is not complying with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). The petitioner also made a representation to the Minister, Social Justice Department of the respondent No.1 on 5th January, 2018 bringing to his notice the failure on the part of the respondent No.2 in complying with the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner having received no response, is constrained to file this Petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though she is a contractual employee of the respondent No.2, she is nevertheless entitled to the salary for the maternity leave period in view of the provisions of the said Act. She has invited our attention to the circular dated 12th April, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, pointing out that the stand of the Central Government that the Act is applicable to all women who are employed in any capacity directly or through any agency i.e. either on contractual or as consultant. In her submission, the Central Government having clarified the applicability of the said Act vis-a-vis the women employee on contractual basis, having regard to the benevolent object of the Act, the position of the State Government in respect of grant of salary during the maternity leave period can be no different.
7. She relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of her submissions :
(i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster roll) & anr., (2000) AIR SC 1274 AND
(ii) J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Badri Mali, (1964) 3 SCR 724, Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the following decisions of various High Courts in support of her propositions :
(i) Mrs. Priyanka Gujarkar Shrivastava vs. Registrar General & another in Writ Petition No.17004 of 2015 of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
(ii) Smt. Archana Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. in Writ Petition No.15523 of 2016 of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
(iii) Rakhi P.V. & ors. Vs. The State of Kerala, dated 27th February, 2018 in Writ Petition (L) No.30561, 39828 and 40564 of 2017 of High Court of Kerala.
(iv) Anima Goel Ms. Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, (2007) 3 LLJ 64, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in.
8. In the light of the provisions of the said Act and the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court regarding applicability of the said Act regarding grant of maternity leave benefit to women employees appointed on contractual basis or on adhoc or on temporary basis, in her submission, the action o
