Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mehajbee Qureshi - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2224 of 2022
Decided On : 08-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder
IMPORTANT POINT
The Maternity Benefit Act applies to various establishments, and benefits cannot be denied based on the number of employees in a specific unit.
Headnote:
Maternity - Maternity Benefit Act - Section 2 - The court interpreted the Maternity Benefit Act, emphasizing its application to various establishments, and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave despite the number of employees in her specific unit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of maternity leave and subsequent termination from her position as Manager under the PMFME Scheme, arguing that the denial was illegal due to the broader application of the Maternity Benefit Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of maternity leave was arbitrary and that the petitioner was entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, despite the number of employees in her specific unit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act despite the respondent's claim of insufficient employees in her unit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maternity Benefit Act applies broadly to various establishments and cannot be denied based solely on the number of employees in a specific project unit.
Result: The court quashed the termination order and granted the petitioner her maternity leave benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), whereby, maternity leave was denied to the petitioner, alongwith order dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), whereby, her service was terminated by the respondent-Director, Department of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially engaged as Manager Enterprise Development (Non-Gazetted Post) on 01.10.2021, under the Scheme of Prime Minister Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises Scheme (PMFME) in the State Programme Management Unit (SPMU). The petitioner moved an application (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) on 10.10.2022 requesting maternity leave w.e.f. 10.10.2022 for upcoming 26 weeks.
4. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 by the Nodal Officer/Director-respondent no.2, stating therein that the benefit of maternity leave is available only in those Offices, where there are minimum 10 employees working, while under the Scheme SPMU-PMFME, only 05 employee are working. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.11.2022, the services of the petitioner was terminated by respondent no.2, wherein, the reason for termination was given that the Scheme is now transferred from Horticulture and Food Processing Department to Industries Department of State of Uttarakhand.
5. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by her termination order, together with the denial of maternity leave to her, is before this Court.
6. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2-State that the termination of service of the petitioner has nothing to do with the denial of the maternity leave to the petitioner; rather, the termination was made for the reason that the aforesaid Scheme was cancelled with immediate effect by respondent no.2 due to the slow pace of the Scheme and the decision is taken to further constitute a new State Programme Management Unit (SPMU) in the Prime Minister Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises Scheme (PMFME). By the same order, the services of the petitioner alongwith other employees of the SPMU, was terminated. A reference may be had from Annexure No.CA-4 to the counter affidavit.
7. However, counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State so far as with regard to the maternity leave of the petitioner is concerned, is silent except saying that the petitioner has signed an agreement with the respondent under the Scheme and she is subjected to the terms and conditions of the agreement. But, what is that terms and conditions of the agreement, which debars the petitioner to get the benefit of maternity leave, counter affidavit is silent about this fact.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the benefit of the maternity leave to the petitioner is concerned, has submitted that the Prime Minister Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises Scheme (PMFME) is a robust institutional architecture, which is working in the different levels from National to District level for implementation of progress of the Scheme, where various employees are working. The stand of the respondent saying that in PMFME (SPMU) only 05 employees are working, the petitioner would not entitle to get the benefit of maternity leave, is highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.
9. In order to substantiate his argument, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though, in PMFME and SPMU constituted, definitely, there are less than 10 employees working, but, if we see it in its entirety, Scheme is working throughout the Country under different levels, the benefit of the maternity leave would not be denied to the petitioner.
10. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has gone through the provisions under Section 2 Application of Act
