Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4816
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
L. Kannaki
Versus
The Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department & Others
W.P.No.3603 of 2007, (O.A.No.7700 of 2001)
Decided On :Decided on : 20-12-2011
For the Petitioner - Thirumavalavan for Ms. M. Kalyani, Advocates.
For the Respondents - RM. Mutthukumar, Government Advocate.
Casual Labourers are entitled to maternity leave and reinstatement under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and denial of such benefits is illegal and violative of constitutional rights.
Headnote:
Maternity Leave - Casual Labourer - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Sections 5(2) and 12 - G.O.Ms.Nos.19 and 117 - The court held that the petitioner, being a Casual Labourer, was entitled to maternity leave and reinstatement as her denial of employment after maternity period was illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and regularise her services from a specified date and pay monetary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Casual Labourer, was denied maternity leave and employment after her maternity period. She made representations and approached the Tribunal seeking reinstatement and regularisation of her services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was unjustly denied maternity leave and employment, and her denial of reinstatement was illegal and violative of constitutional rights.
Issues: The issues involved denial of maternity leave and reinstatement to a Casual Labourer and the regularisation of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being a Casual Labourer, was entitled to maternity leave and reinstatement as her denial of employment after maternity period was illegal and violative of constitutional rights. The court also directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and regularise her services from a specified date and pay monetary benefits.
Final Decision: The impugned order denying reinstatement was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, regularise her services, and pay monetary benefits.
1. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Labourer, on daily wage basis, in the third respondent Cattle Breeding Farm, on 30.05.1988. According to the petitioner, the Additional Director, Exotic Cattle Breeding Farm, Eachankottai sent proposals to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, in the year 1993, for regularisation of Casual Labourers, who have rendered five years of service. The petitioner ranks at serial number 25 in the women list of Casual Labourers. The Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai forwarded the same to the Government, on 06.02.1995, recommending regularisation of the services of Casual Labourers.
2. Before the Government passed orders on the proposals of the Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, the Casual Labourers, numbering 465, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Applications in O.A.Nos.893, 894, 1455, 2423 and 3851 of 1993 seeking regularisation of their services. The Tribunal passed an order dated 26.10.1994 in the said Original Applications directing the Government to regularise the services of the Casual Labourers, in the Animal Husbandry Department. Some among the 465 are the persons, who joined in service subsequent to the petitioner.
3. Based on the aforesaid order dated 26.10.1994 of the Tribunal, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 07.05.1997 regularising the services of 826 Casual Labourers, as Animal Husbandry Assistants, in the scale of pay of Rs.775-1030. The aforesaid 826 Casual Labourers includes 465 Casual Labourers, covered by the order dated 26.10.1994 of the Tribunal.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner became pregnant and she was not able to attend duties from 05.05.1996 and hence, she requested the third respondent to permit her to go on maternity leave. However, the third respondent refused to grant maternity leave on the ground that the petitioner, being a Casual Labourer, is not entitled for maternity leave. After delivery of a male child on 30.09.1996, she approached the third respondent seeking employment. But the third respondent refused to provide employment. Hence, she made representations dated 06.01.1997, 17.12.1997, 01.05.1998 and 31.03.1999 seeking reinstatement and regularisation of her services.
5. Since no order was passed on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.6784 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order dated 18.11.1999 directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 31.03.1999.
6. Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.1999 of the Tribunal, the second respondent passed an order dated 23.08.2000, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement.
7. Challenging the said order dated 23.08.2000, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.7700 of 2001 before the Tribunal and sought for a direction to the respondents to reappoint her as Casual Labourer in the third respondent Cattle Breeding Farm.
8. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner stayed away from work in May 1996 itself, without any information in writing and she did not turn up for work from 05.05.1996. It is also stated that all Casual Labourers, working in the third respondent Cattle Breeding Farm were brought into regular establishment as Animal Husbandry Assistants. It is also admitted that the petitioner made representations dated 06.01.1997, 17.12.1997 and 01.05.1998, but however, there was no personal representations made by the petitioner.
9. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.3603 of 2007.
10. The petitioner filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.3603 of 2007 for amendment of prayer. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner has sought t
