Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
Chairman, PSM College Of Dental Sciences & Research – Petitioner
Versus
Reshma Vinod And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 13201 OF 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2024
Maternity Benefits - Applicability of Maternity Act to Educational Institutions - Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Sections 2(a), 2(b), 17(3) - The court analyzed the applicability of the Maternity Benefits Act to educational institutions, concluding that the Act's provisions do not universally apply to such institutions unless explicitly included by state notification. The court emphasized the distinction between 'establishment' and 'industry' as defined in relevant laws, ultimately determining that the petitioner, a dental college, was not subject to the Maternity Act prior to a specific state notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Dental College & Research Centre, received a show cause notice for alleged non-payment of maternity benefits to an employee. The petitioner contended that the Maternity Act did not apply to educational institutions, while the respondent argued that it was a beneficial legislation applicable to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Maternity Act's provisions were not applicable to the petitioner as an educational institution prior to a state notification issued on 6th March 2020, which extended the Act's provisions to private educational institutions.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 apply to educational institutions like the petitioner, and if the orders issued against the petitioner were sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that educational institutions do not fall within the definition of 'establishment' under the Maternity Act unless explicitly included by a state notification. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Ruth Soren's case was pivotal in determining that educational institutions are not considered establishments for the purposes of the Maternity Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders as they were not sustainable under the law prior to the state notification of 6th March 2020.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
The petitioner is a Dental College & Research Centre, an educational institution established with the permission of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The permission to conduct academic session 2017-2018 was renewed by order dated 3rd February 2017 of the Government of India.
2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 11th September 2017 from the second respondent, Inspector under Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (The Asst.Labour Officer), Kunnamkulam alleging non-payment of maternity benefit to the first respondent under the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Maternity Act'). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 15.9.2017 to the second respondent. However, the second respondent passed an order dated 20th September 2017 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.64,393.56 as maternity benefit and medical bonus to the first respondent under the provisions of the Maternity Act.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17(3) of the Maternity Act before the third respondent. The Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 had dismissed the appeal. This Writ Petition has been filed impugning the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in Exts.P4 and P6.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Maternity Act have no universal application. Section 2(a) of the Maternity Act provides that the provisions of the Act would be applicable to every factory, mine or plantation and establishments wherein persons are employed for the exhibition of equestrian, acrobatic and other performances. Further, Section 2(b) of the Act provides that provisions of the Act are applicable to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State where 10 or more persons are employed. The proviso to Section 2(b) provides that a State Government with the approval of the Central Government, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention, by notification in the official gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply also to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an educational institution and it is not a shop or establishment to which the provisions of the Maternity Act are applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the provisions of Maternity Act are not applicable to the petitioner Institution which is a medical educational institution, the orders impugned are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ruth Soren v Managing Committee, East ISSDA and others, 2001(2) SCC 115 . It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders in Ext.P4 and P6 are to be set aside and the Writ Petition is to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that Maternity Act is a beneficial legislation and it is an establishment for the purposes of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act. The Government has not exempted the medical educational institution from the purview of the provisions of Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 and therefore, the Maternity Act would be applicable to the petitioner institution and the impugned orders are not likely to be interfered with. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Noorul Islam Educational Trust v Asst. Labour Officer, (2008(1) KHC 123) .
7. No one can doubt that the Maternity Act is a beneficial legislation and has to be liberally interpreted. However, the question under considera
An alternate efficacious remedy though available has not been resorted to by the petitioner and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.
The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 applies to educational institutions, affirming their classification as 'establishments' to provide social security benefits to employees, regardless of the ins....
Educational institutions qualify as 'establishments' under the Employees State Insurance Act, ensuring employee social security benefits, regardless of their non-commercial status.
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....
A project fellow engaged on a temporary stipend basis for a specific project duration is not considered an employee under the Maternity Benefit Act and is therefore ineligible for statutory maternity....
Point of Law : Act of 1961 was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother a....
The Maternity Benefit Act ensures that all female employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to maternity benefits, reinforcing the principle of non-discrimination.
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply to government servants, and state policy restricting maternity leave for the third child is valid.
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
