Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 4367
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and S.N.Aggarwal JJ.
Anima Goel
Versus
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board
Civil Writ Petition No. 677 of 2004,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 2006
Entitlement to maternity leave under Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 based on previous court decisions.
Headnote:
Maternity Benefit Act - Entitlement to Maternity Leave - The court held that the petitioner, a Data Entry Operator, is entitled to the benefit of Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, based on previous decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator, requested maternity leave, which was declined by the respondent through multiple orders. The petitioner relied on Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, based on previous decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
Issues: The issue raised was whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, which established the entitlement of maternity leave for the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the orders declining the petitioner's request for maternity leave were quashed. The respondent was directed to extend the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner within a specified period.
M. M. KUMAR, J.
1. The instant petition is directed against orders dated September 5, 2001 (Annexure P-4), April 8, 2002 (Annexure-P-6) and September 22, 2003 (Annexure P-10), declining the request of the petitioner to grant her the benefit of maternity leave. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been working as a Data Entry Operator with the respondent. Initially, she was employed on daily wage basis w. e. f. September 1, 1995. Thereafter, w. e. f. December 1, 1995, she became a contractual employee. The petitioner has placed reliance on Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and has submitted that she is entitled to the maternity leave benefit. The aforementioned fact that she has been working with the respondent on daily wage basis and contractual basis has remained undisputed. However, the request made by the petitioner has been rejected by the aforementioned orders Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-10.
2. The issue raised in the instant petition as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sec.5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1901 has already been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Female Workers (muster, Roll) and Another. The aforementioned view has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Vandana Sharma and Another V/s. State of Haryana and Others, C. W. P. No.5518/2002, decided on April 11, 2002 and other number of petitions. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and the orders dated September 5, 2001 (Annexure P-4), April 8,2001 (Annexure P-6) and September 22, 2003 (Annexure P-10)are hereby quashed. The respondent, is directed to extend the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
