Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN
Airports Authority of India Workers Union – Appellant
Versus
Under Secretary , Ministry of Labour , Govt. of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Jitendra Jain, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge communications dated 28th January 2014 and 31st March 2014 issued by Respondent No.2, whereby Petitioner No.2's application for maternity leave benefit is rejected on the ground that Petitioner No.2 is having more than two surviving children and hence is not eligible for the grant of maternity leave as per AAI Leave Regulations 2003.
Brief facts:-
3. The Petitioner No.2 married Mr. K. Raja Armugam and on 18th July 1997 gave birth to one child from the said wedlock. However, on 6th December 2000, Mr. K. Raja Armugam passed away and in his place, pursuant to an application by Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, she was appointed by Respondent No.2 on compassionate ground as Junior Attendant on 24th February 2004.
4. On 1st July 2008, Petitioner No.2 remarried one Mr. Shyam Sandal. Out of the second wedlock, she gave birth to
The court established that maternity leave regulations should be interpreted liberally to support women's rights, emphasizing that eligibility criteria should consider only children born during the s....
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply to government servants, and state policy restricting maternity leave for the third child is valid.
The central legal point established is the entitlement of female employees to 180 days of maternity leave as per the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and international conventions, irrespective of their ....
Maternity leave is a reproductive right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and restrictive state policies must not obstruct such entitlements, as aligned with international standards.
Point of Law : According to Article 42 of Constitution of India, “State is required to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief”.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of temporary employees to maternity leave and benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and the need for a liberal interpret....
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 prevails over conflicting state regulations, affirming women's fundamental right to maternity leave.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of female employees to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and the prohibition of discrimination based on em....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article