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 requirements.

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 and she was promoted to Associate Professor in 2015. On 17th October, 2018, the Petitioner discontinued the services of Respondent No.2 leading to her filing a complaint before the Labour Commissioner under the Act.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that it was not aware that Respondent No.2 was pregnant and an intimation was given to the Petitioner only after the relieving letter bearing Ref: HR/FAC/2018 was served on her on 17th October, 2018. Thus, it is submitted that the awarding of maternity benefit for six months under the Act is untenable. Mr. Ojha, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that at the time when the relieving letter was served upon Respondent No.2, the Petitioner had no knowledge that Respondent No.2 was seven months' pregnant.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha, ld. counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, submits that an email was sent to the Petitioner on 17th October, 2018, prior to the time the relieving letter was received by her. Vide the said email, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner of being at an advanced stage of pregnancy, and apprised the Petitioner that she would be required to go on maternity leave from the first week of November, 2018, on advice of her gynaecologist. He further submits that the copies of the emails were placed before the Labour Commissioner.

6. Mr. Satyakam, ld. ASC appearing for the Labour Commissioner, has placed on record the copy of the email, which he received from the Labour Commissioner's office, which according to him, completely falsifies the Petitioner's case. He submits that an email was sent on 17th October, 2018 by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner and it is only thereafter, that the relieving letter was served. He further takes the Court through various provisions of the Act to argue that as per Section 6 (6) of the Act, even if it is presumed that the notice of claim for maternity leave was not given, Respondent No.2 cannot be deprived of the benefits under the Act.

7. Heard. A perusal of the records and facts which have been placed on record, shows that Respondent No.2 was seven months' pregnant on 17th October, 2018 when the relieving letter is stated to have been served upon her. The content of the relieving letter would be very relevant and is set out herein below:

" Ref: HR/FAC/2018

October 17, 2018

Dr. Nidhi Maheshwari

C-2/702, Belvedere Tower

Charmwood Village

Eros Garden

Suraj Kund, Faridabad.

Dr. Nidhi Maheshwari,

As your services are no longer required by the Institute, you are hereby served a three months notice period w.e.f. 18th October, 2018. You will be relieved from the service of the Institute on 17th January, 2019. "

8. A perusal of the relieving letter shows that there are no reasons assigned whatsoever for terminating her services in this manner, as no