Asia Pacific Institute of Management vs Office of Joint Labour Commissioner

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Asia Pacific Institute of Management – Appellant
Versus
Office of Joint Labour Commissioner – Respondent

Table of Content
1. challenge of termination under maternity benefit act (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's lack of knowledge of pregnancy (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal obligation under maternity benefit act (Para 6 , 10)
4. email evidence of pregnancy and intentions (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. notice requirements under the act (Para 14 , 15)
6. prohibition of dismissal during pregnancy (Para 17 , 19)
7. empathy required in dealing with pregnant employees (Para 20 , 24)
8. order for payment of maternity benefits (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 13th August, 2020 passed by the Inspecting Officer/Inspector, Office of the Joint Labour Commissioner (District South) Labour Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter "Labour Commissioner") under the MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT , 1961 (hereinafter "Act").

3. Respondent No.2/Dr. Nidhi Maheshwari (hereinafter "Respondent No.2") had joined the Petitioner - Asia Pacific Institute of Management (hereinafter "Petitioner") as an Assistant Professor in 2011

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTPRATHIBA M.SINGHAsia Pacific Institute of Management – AppellantVersusOffice of Joint Labour Commissioner – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Asia Pacific Institute of Management – Appellant
Versus
Office of Joint Labour Commissioner – Respondent