An employer's failure to provide maternity benefits constitutes a legal violation under the Maternity Benefit Act, warranting conviction and penalties.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 in S.T.No.3577/1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. The allegation in the complaint brought by the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor against the accused is that when the Assistant Labour Officer examined the business premises of the accused, he found violations of the law, including denial of maternity benefit to the women employees entitled for such benefits. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.

2. The complainant examined three witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P12 documents in the trial court. In defence, the accused examined one witness, and proved Exts.D1 to D8 documents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated

31.8.2005, the accused approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A. No.824/2005. In appeal, the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for 1½ months, and the fine sentence was maintained.

4. On a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in revision, in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the accused. PW1 has proved the required documents, and his evidence very well proves the violation of law alleged by the complainant. It stands proved that the accused had women employees at his business concern, and some of them had availed maternity leave also. There is nothing to show that the accused had made payment of maternity benefits to the ladies, who were entitled for the benefits at that time. The accused could not also offer any explanation for this failure during trial. The other violations are also proved by the complainant. Failure in keeping proper registers and accounts is also very well proved in evidence. I find that the accused was rightly convicted by the trial court.

5. The minimun sentence provided under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefit Act is imprisonment for three months, and the maximum sentence is imprisonment for one year. The offence is punishable with fine also, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and it may extend to Rs.5,000/-. The proviso to provides that for sufficient reasons, the court can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term, or fine only, in lieu of imprisonment. The offence in this case was detected long back, in 1999. 19 years have elapsed since the date of incident. On a consideration of the various aspects, including the circumstance of the offence alleged, and also the long lapse of years, I find that there can be a deviation from the rule of minimum sentence, and the amount of fine can be enhanced to the maximum.

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefit Act in S.T.No.3577/1999 of the court below is confirmed, and the revision is disposed of accordingly. However, the jail sentence imposed by the trial court will stand set aside, and in lieu of such modification, the amount of fine imposed by the court below is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), with the default sentence already imposed by the trial court.

The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within four weeks from this date to make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to release the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.