IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Shachi Gahoi – Appellant
Versus
Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10521 of 2019
Decided On : 05-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination of services of a pregnant employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against the grounds of termination. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal provisions on maternity leave protections. (Para 9 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. interpretation of maternity benefits and termination. (Para 20 , 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 5. court order for reinstatement and compensation. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 whereby services of the Petitioner, while working on temporary basis as Research Associate with the Respondents/Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as `ICAR-IASRI') were terminated.
2. Narrative of facts captured in the writ petition is that Petitioner having a Ph.D. degree in Bioinformatics was appointed as Research Associate in ICAR-IASRI in a project called `Consortium Research Platform on Genomics' for the period ending 31.03.2017. The appointment was on a contractual basis for the said period or termination of the project, whichever was earlier. Appointment letter dated 29.10.2016 was issued to the Petitioner which stipulated the terms and conditions of service including nature of admissible leaves which included casual leave, restricted holidays as per Government of India/ICAR Rules as applicable from time to time, maternity leave and compensatory leave in lieu of duty performed on holidays.
3. Clause 8 of the appointment letter permitted the Respondents to terminate the Research Associateship, with or without notice, at any time, if the Research Associate was found to be negligent in his or her work or in case of unbecoming conduct. Petitioner avers that she was sincerely and diligently performing her duties which is evident from communications of the Respondents between January, 2019 to June, 2019 and for two and a half years that she worked with the Respondents, she shouldered several important responsibilities and published five research papers in reputed International journals. On account of her good performance in the project, she was granted third extension from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020.
4. According to the Petitioner, the problem started when she applied for leave on 13.06.2019 on account of back ache and weakness by an email addressed to Project Co-in-charge. Since Petitioner was not recovering, she repeated her request by email dated 15.06.2019. On 19.06.2019, Petitioner informed the concerned officers through an email communication that medical tests confirmed her pregnancy and on account of bed rest advised by the doctor, she would need leave for two weeks. Petitioner kept the Respondents updated on her medical condition and the tests she was undergoing and finally vide email dated 15.07.2019 she expressed her willingness to join back. On joining back on 22.07.2019, Petitioner submitted all her medical reports to the Project in-charge Dr. Anil Rai/Respondent No. 2 indicating her visits, case history and doctor's prescription at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
5. Respondents terminated the services of the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 on three grounds viz. absence without information, not performing duties consistently and obstruction in the work of the institution. On 29.07.2019, Petitioner made a representation to the Director apprising him of her medical condition and the fact that she had kept the institution informed of the same. Request was made to review her case of termination as the same was during the period of pregnancy. However, the termination order was not recalled and the representation was rejected by a letter dated 26.08.2019. The pending salary bills for the months of June and July, 2019 were also not cleared, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is a meritorious student with Ph.D. degree in Bioinformatics and had secured 16th All India Rank in DBT-BINC Exami
Learned Single Judge was right in directing reinstatement with 25% back wages and it also observed that the grant of full back wages would be appropriate remedy and also held that learned Single Judg....
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.
The main legal point established is that termination of a woman's service due to pregnancy to avoid maternity benefits is impermissible, and employers have an obligation to provide maternity benefits....
Contractual employees are entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, even after the expiration of their contracts, and the Act overrides any agreement or contract of s....
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 ....
The court reaffirmed that termination of a pregnant employee is unlawful under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and benefits must be provided irrespective of any contractual terms or notice requireme....
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 ....
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide maternity benefits to all women working in establishments, without discrimination based on the nature of appointment. The Act also provides for the app....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.