Contractual employees entitled to maternity benefits under Maternity Benefit Act if 80-day qualifying period met; Section 27 overrides inconsistent contracts, ensuring statutory protections prevail over employment terms.

JUDGMENT :

(PER ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order, direction in the nature of Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and proceedings in respect of the impugned communication dated 21st October 2024 (received on 22nd October 2024) [Exhibit-H] and after going through the legality, validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to extend all benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 to the Petitioner forthwith.”

2. Apropos the above, we are in the present proceedings, called upon to examine and adjudicate a case of the Petitioner being a doctor and practicing anesthesiologist engaged as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis with Seth G. S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital (Respondent No.2), operating under the aegis of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Respondent No.1). The Petitioner is fundamentally aggrieved by an impugned communication dated 21 October 2024 (“Impugned Communication” for short) by which the Respondent No. 2 refused the grant of maternity benefits in favour of the Petitioner. The reason as stated being that such benefits would not be available to contractual employees of the Respondent No. 1 – Corporation. Such rejection of the grant of maternity benefits to the Petitioner is to be tested under the canopy of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“the said Act” for short). We are dealing with a legislation which is enacted with an avowed object to guarantee maternity benefits to working women. The preamble to the said Act provides for regulation of employment of women in certain establishments with provisions for extending maternity benefits to them. The statutory provisions engrafted under the said Act ought to be read in light of such object and purpose sought to be achieved so as to ensure fair and judicious implementation of the said Act and its provisions. It is in such conspectus that we would be delving into the validity and legality of the Respondent’s action in denying maternity benefits to the Petitioner.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The Petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis in the Department of Anaesthesia with Respondent No. 2 with effect from 4 January 2022 until 30 June 2022. By an office order dated 15 July 2022, the appointment of the Petitioner (supra) was continued until 30 June 2023. Such appointment of the Petitioner with the second Respondent was further continued by an office order dated 27 June 2023 until 30 June 2024. This was followed by an another office order dated 26 June 2024 which further continued the Petitioner’s contractual employment until 30 June 2025.

4. An agreement was exe