2023 Supreme(HP) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
State of H.P. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sita Devi - Respondent
CWP No. 647 of 2020
Decided On : 12-06-2023
Important Points
Subject
MATERNITY LEAVE - RIGHTS OF WOMEN
Act Referred
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.25(b)(1)
MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT : .
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : Art.25(2), Art.6
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21, 42, 29, 39D - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 25(B) (1) - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Article 25(2), 6 - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Maternity leave - Conferment of work-charge status - Order passed by State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application may kindly be quashed and set aside - Medical certificate of respondent submitted after 20 years may not be considered for period of maternity leave as continuous service - Maternity leave is a fundamental human right of respondent, which could not have been denied - Para 19.
Finding of the Court :
Object of maternity leave is to protect dignity of motherhood by providing full and healthy maintenance to woman and her child, maternity leave is intended to achieve social justice to women, motherhood and childhood, both require special attention - Respondent was a daily wage woman employee at time of advance pregnancy could not have been compelled to undertake hard labour, as it would have been detrimental to not only to her health and safety but also to child health, safety and growth - Maternity leave is a fundamental human right of respondent, which could not have been denied - Therefore, clearly action of petitioner is violative of Articles 29 and 39D of Constitution of India - Court find no merit in petition.
Result : Petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs., with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to mother and to become a mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Therefore, whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of her child to a woman, who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her, must realise the physical difficulties, which a working woman faced in performing duties at the work place while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth (See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr. 2000 (3) SCC).
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') whereby the respondent was granted the benefit of deemed maternity leave and thereafter consequential benefit of conferment of workcharge status on completion of 8 years service, the employer-State has filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
(i) That the order dated 21.11.2018 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application (D) No. 322 of 2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the medical certificate of the respondent submitted after 20 years may not be considered for the period of maternity leave as continuous service.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent had been engaged on daily wage basis and the detail of working days spanning over two decades of service, is as under :
Detail of working days in respect of Smt. Sita Devi, wi/o Sh. Krishan Kant, District Kangra (H.P.)
| Sr. No. | Year | Days |
| 1. | 1987 | 157 |
| 2. | 1988 | 236 |
| 3. | 1989 | 292 |
| 4. | 1990 | 252 |
| 5. | 1991 | 252 |
| 6. | 1992 | 189 |
| 7. | 1993 | 204 |
| 8. | 1994 | 202 |
| 9. | 1995 | 324 |
| 10. | 1996 | 156 |
| 11. | 1997 | 242 |
| 12. | 1998 | 240 |
| 13. | 1999 | 295 |
| 14. | 2000 | 312 |
| 15. | 2001 | 328 |
| 16. | 2002 | 323 |
| 17. | 2003 | 262 |
| 18. | 2004 | 337 |
| 19. | 2005 | 343 |
| 20. | 2006 | 240 |
| 21. | 2007 | 312 |
| 22. | 2008 | 289 |
4. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1996, respondent was carrying a child in her womb, which she delivered on 30.05.1996 and after availing maternity leave w.e.f. 01.06.1996 to 31.08.1996 i.e. only 3 months, the respondent assumed duties and it is only on account of pregnancy and subsequent delivery that the respondent could only put in 156 days as against the minimum requirement of 240 days in a year.
5. The learned Tribunal took these facts into account and thereafter proceeded to pass the following order:-
5. The ailment of the applicant forced her to be away from her work. Her period of maternity leave would be deemed to be continuous service in view of the provisions of Section 25(B) (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, which reads as under:-
25(B) (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
6. The instructions to the contra that the benefit of deemed continuous service is only available to the indoor patient in violation of express provision is nonest. The applicant on account of deemed continuous service completed 8 years of service upto the 01.01.2002.
7. Consequently, the original application is allowed and the period of maternity leave of the applicant is deemed to be as continuous service and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years service within two months from today. The actual financial benefits shall be restricted to three years prior to filing of the original application. The applicant s