Statutory maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, apply to contractual employees, overriding specific prohibitions in employment contracts, affirming the right to maternal health protection.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard Mr. Devak Vardhan, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging Clause 7 of the engagement letter dated 02/03.09.2021 to the extent it denies maternity leave to female employees in the establishment. Quashing of order dated 03.05.2023 granting matrimonial leave to petitioner without pay has also been sought alongwith a direction to concerned authority to grant maternity benefit to petitioner with full wages as applicable.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis on the post of Special Educator vide letter dated 08.10.2020 on a fixed honorarium for a period of 89 days. It is submitted that subsequently upon completion of the aforesaid tenure, the petitioner was again re-engaged on the said post on contractual basis vide letter dated 03.09.2021, again for a period of 89 but with a new addition of Clause 7 which denied benefits of maternity leave to petitioner. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner submitted an e-mail application dated 20.04.2023 seeking maternity leave in terms of Section 10 of the MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT , 1961 for a period of two weeks w.e.f. 20.04.2023 till 04.05.2023. The said application was granted partly granting leave for the aforesaid time period without pay on medical grounds.

4. Learned counsel has adverted to the MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT , 1961 to submit that the Act by its very nature applies even to contractual engagement in any establishment including the one under which petitioner was engaged. He has adverted to various sections of the Act of 1961 to submit that petitioner had a right to be granted the aforesaid benefit particularly those indicated in Sections 5 , 8 and 10 of the Act. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1067 as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P. and others , 2017 SCC OnLine All 4396.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has adverted to paragraphs 4 to 6 of the counter affidavit indicating the time periods whereunder petitioner was engaged on contractual basis. It is submitted that the aforesaid benefit could not be extended to petitioner in view of specific stipulation indicated in paragraph-7 of the letter dated 03.09.2021 whereby petitioner was re-engaged in service on contractual basis.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner was initially engaged in service on contractual basis on the post of Special Educator for a period of 89 days vide order dated 08.10.2020. It is noticeable that the aforesaid letter of engagement did not contain any such prohibition in grant of maternity benefit to petitioner and it is only in the subsequent engagement letter dated 03.09.2021 where such a prohibition was indicated for the first time in Clause 7.

7. In view thereof, the question requiring adjudication would be whether petitioner would be governed by provisions of the Act of 1961 or the specific stipulation prohibiting maternity benefit as indicated in the engagement letter dated 03.09.2021 particularly in view of principles of estoppel.

8. With regard to aforesaid