Point of Law: if matters are intimately connected with the conferment of the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to Life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then not only constitutional concept of reasonableness but also the principles of proportionality, dignity, etc would also come into play.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The instant Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.5902/2015 has been filed before this Court by the appellant herein seeking the following prayers [See page 34 of the paper book of this Writ Appeal]:

“a) Call for the records and files leading to Exhibits-P3 and P5 orders issued by 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, and quash Exhibits P3 and P5 orders by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction; and

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings;"

2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 12.10.2020 dismissing above WP(C) by upholding the impugned orders passed by respondents 2 & 1 respectively, and directing that the maternity benefit covered by the impugned orders shall be immediately disbursed to contesting respondent No.3 in the WP(C). Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2020 dismissing the above WP(C), the writ petitioner has filed the instant intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

3. Heard Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A./petitioner in the WP(C), Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 & 2 (appellate authority and original authority respectively under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961) and Sri.V.J.James, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 (claimant of maternity benefit).

4. The proceedings under challenge in the above writ petition was the one at Ext.P-3 order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent original authority under Sec.17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and as confirmed by Ext.P-5 appellate order dated 12.11.2014 issued by the 1st respondent appellate authority under the said Act.

5. A brief recital of the facts of the case will be pertinent. R-3 herein/R-3 in the WP(C) was an employee of the writ appellant/writ petitioner, and she had submitted Ext.R-3(a) application on 14.6.2011 seeking maternity leave for 12 weeks w.e.f. 17.6.2011. In Ext.R-3(a) application, the 3rd respondent had informed the petitioner employer that she (employee) is being operated on 20.6.2011 for delivering a child, and she should be granted maternity leave w.e.f. 17.6.2011. It is common ground that the 3rd respondent/employee had delivered a girl child on 20.6.2011. Since, the claimed maternity benefit was not honoured by the writ petitioner/appellant/employer, the 3rd respondent/employee had preferred Ext.P-1 complaint dated 27.9.2011 before the 2nd respondent original authority (The Assistant Labour Officer concerned). The petitioner/appellant/employer had given remarks on the said application as per Ext.P-2 letter dated 25.10.2011. The 2nd respondent Assistant Labour Officer had heard both sides and passed the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 26.12.2011 directing the employer to pay maternity leave benefits amounting to Rs.50,400/-along with medical bonus under Sec.8 of the abovesaid Act amounting to Rs.2,500/-, within one week. The employer had challenged Ext.P-3 order by preferring a statutory appeal as per Ext.P-4 before the 1st respondent appellate authority (The Deputy Labour Commissioner) in terms of Sec.17(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. One of the contentions urged in the said appeal was to the effect that the impugned Ext.P-3 order happened to be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/appellant/employer and that evidence collected behind the back has also been relied on by the original authority. More crucially, the main contention urged by the writ petitioner/appellant/employer was that the grant of maternity leave benefits for the period prior to 17.6.2011 and for the period since 31.7.2011, is against the provisions contained in Sec.5 of above Act, more particularly Sec.5(3) thereof.