The main legal point established is that termination of a woman's service due to pregnancy to avoid maternity benefits is impermissible, and employers have an obligation to provide maternity benefits and ensure just and humane conditions of work.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court, invoking provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 14th September, 2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Chief Inspector of Factories-cum-Appellate Authority, under Maternity Benefit Act 1961, in appeal No. L-L&E (MB) Appeal-2019 titled Secretary Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School and another vs. Sharu Gupta and another, whereby order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by Labour Inspector Circle-1 Shimla (Authorized Inspector under Maternity Benefits Act), in case No. L1/SML/C-1/Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Sharu Gupta)/19 titled Sharu Gupta vs. the Secretary Managing Committee of Loreto Convent School, has been affirmed with modification by granting additional payment of three months salary to the respondent/claimant as per provisions contained in Section 17(2)(a)(b) of the Act, over and above the relief granted by the Authorized Inspector directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,45,592/- as maternity benefit and salary for the month of September 2019 to the complainant and also to take joining of Sharu Gupta (complainant) on the same post as Assistant Teacher which she was holding before her proceeding on maternity leave.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also perused the original record summoned from the petitioners as well as of Authorities.

3. Admitted facts in present case are that respondent was appointed in Petitioner No.2-School, managed by Petitioner No.1, as Assistant Teacher on contract basis from 1.4.2016 to 31.07.2017. Subsequently, she was appointed on probation w.e.f. 1.7.2017 till 30.06.2018. Probation of respondent No.1 was extended from 1.7.2018 to 30.06.2019.

4. Petitioner remained on medical/earned/without pay leave twice w.e.f. 20th September 2018 to 30th September, 2018 and from 12th November 2018 to 24th November 2018. On 21st December, 2018, services of respondent No.1 were terminated vide letter dated 20th December, 2018 w.e.f. 21st December 2018 by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice and termination letter was served upon respondent No.1 on 21st December, 2018.

5. Respondent No.1 delivered a baby in Tenzin Hospital Shimla on 12th April, 2019 and she preferred complaint under Section 17 of Maternity Benefits Act 1961 (‘the Act’) before the Labour Inspector (Authorized Inspector) under the Act on 14th May, 2019 for setting aside the termination order with consequential payment of Rs.44,896/- after adjusting one month’s salary inclusive of the salary of winter vacation from 1st January, 2019 to 28th February 2019 from the petitioners-Management and also to pay maternity benefit to her from 1.3.2019 to 30.09.2019 under the Act amounting to Rs.1,97,106/- based on salary of respondent No.1 and also to pay Rs.3500/- as medical bonus as admissible under Section 8 of the Act.

6. In response to notice issued by the Inspector, petitioners filed reply on 16th July, 2019 with plea that respondent No.1 had not applied for maternity leave and, therefore, there is no question of her termination on the ground of maternity leave and as and when she asked for leave, leave was granted to her, whereas her termination was strictly in accordance with Service Rules for teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners and also in terms of her appointment, because her service record was not found to be satisfactory and one month’s salary in lieu of notice of termination was given to her.

7. After taking into consideration material placed before him, the Authorized Inspector allowed the complaint and issued direction to reinstate respondent No.1 and to pay her maternity benefits as referred supra vide order dated 16.09.2019.

8. Against the order dated 16.09.2019, appeal was preferred by petitioners. Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration material on record and pleas taken by the parties, has arrived at a conclusion that Management had fail