Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Neeta Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 29978 of 2013 With CAN 4 of 2020 (Old CAN 982 of 2020)
Decided on : 26-02-2024
Maternity Benefits - Employment Contract - Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 2, Section 3(e) - The court discussed the applicability of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 to the Reserve Bank of India and the entitlement of the petitioner to maternity benefits under the said Act. The court also considered the definitions of 'establishment' and 'commercial establishment' under the Act of 1963 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the right to maternity benefits and the prohibition of discrimination based on employment status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Intern at the Reserve Bank of India, applied for maternity leave but was denied based on the terms of her employment contract. The petitioner challenged the denial, citing the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and that the denial of such benefits constituted discrimination and violated the Act. The court also noted that the Reserve Bank of India fell within the definition of a commercial establishment under the Act of 1963.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and the applicability of the Act to the Reserve Bank of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a legal right to seek maternity leave under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and that the denial of such benefits constituted discrimination. The court also interpreted the definitions of 'establishment' and 'commercial establishment' under the Act of 1963 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to support its findings.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to afford compensation in the form of leave with pay to the petitioner for the period for which maternity benefits were denied. The writ petition succeeded, and the court disposed of the connected application without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. Questioning the failure on the part of the respondent no. 2 to allow maternity leave with pay to the petitioner for 180 days, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Intern at the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) on contractual basis for a period of 3 years on 16th August, 2011.
2. In course of her employment with the bank, the petitioner having conceived had applied for maternity leave vide letter dated 20th November, 2012, for 6 months, with effect from 3rd December, 2012 as she was advised bed rest by the doctor, and her expected due date was sometimes in the first part of January, 2013. Although, there are no contemporaneous communication rejecting the petitioner’s application for maternity leave, however, subsequently by a letter in writing dated 14th March, 2013, the petitioner was informed that she is not entitled to maternity leave as per the terms of the contract, however, her absence from duty may be treated as leave without compensation. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, she would be entitled to medical benefits as available to the junior most officers in the Bank.
3. By reasons of rejection of the petitioner’s application for grant of maternity leave, the petitioner had demanded justice through her learned advocate’s letter, which was responded to by the respondent bank by its communication dated 13th June, 2013 wherein it was, inter alia, contended that as per the contract of appointment the petitioner is not entitled to maternity leave. However, since, an Executive Intern is eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses as per schedule applicable to the junior most officers of the Bank, the petitioner would be eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses, on submission of relevant bills after reporting back to the Bank.
4. In the facts noted hereinabove and being aggrieved on the failure on the part of the respondent no.2 to extend maternity benefits to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the contract for employment cannot have an overriding effect on Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), which is a beneficial piece of legislation. By referring to Section 21 of the said Act, it is contended that the said Act is a Central Act and the same clearly has an overriding effect on other Acts, including the contract for employment. By referring to Section 2 of the said Act, it has been contended that the word “establishment” as appearing in Section 2 of the said Act has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and it has been held in CWP No. 13098 of 2021 that a bank is covered by the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, which is pari materia with the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 and having regard to the same, the provisions of the said Act, squarely applies on the respondent no.2.
6. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of W.P.(C) No.34821/2018. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088; and in the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 421. She has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anshu Rani v. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2019) SCC OnLine All 5170., and the master circular on leave as applicable to the employees of the Reserve Bank of India dated 1st July, 2011 which, inter alia, specifies in Clause 9.1.1 thereof that leave pay is permissible to its employees for a maximum period of 12 months during the entire period of her service. However, the limit for grant of such leave on any one occasion will be 6 months at the maximum, for confinement and pre-na
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 alternate efficacious remedy though available has not been resorted to by the petitioner and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.
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 ....
Contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits extending beyond the contractual period, as per the Maternity Benefit Act, recognizing women's rights irrespective of employment status.
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 o....
Section 5(1), broadly, provides that every woman would be entitled to payment of maternity benefit at rate provided therein, for a period when she is absent i.e., period immediately preceding day of ....
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”.
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
