Differentiating Between Contractual & Permanent Employees For Purpose Of Maternity Leave Is Impermissible: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is impermissible and violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, to differentiate between contractual employees and permanent employees for the purpose of extending maternity leave. A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:On the question of a woman's right to child birth and maternity leave...
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is impermissible and violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, to differentiate between contractual employees and permanent employees for the purpose of extending maternity leave.
A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:
On the question of a woman's right to child birth and maternity leave no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees of the respondent no.2. Denial of grant of maternity leave to the petitioner constitutes a discriminatory would tantamount to compel an employee to work during her advanced pregnancy, notwithstanding the same may ultimately endanger both her and her foetus. If the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.
Background
The Court was dealing with a plea by the petitioner who was appointed as an Executive Intern at the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI"), on a contractual basis for three years in 2011, and had challenged the failure of the bank to allow her maternity leave for a period of 180 days.
Since the petitioner conceived during her employment, she applied for maternity leave, but was informed that she was not entitled to it, and her absence would be treated as leave without compensation.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the contract of employment would be subservient to the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 ("1961 Act"), which was a beneficial legislation and had an overriding effect over the employment contract.
It was argued that the RBI would fall under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, and the 1961 Act would be applicable over it.
It was contended that even as per the RBI's master circular, employees would be eligible for leave with pay of 12 months during the entire service, and the same would be limited for a maximum of 6 months at a time. Therefore it was argued that denial of maternity leave amounted to discrimination.
Counsel for the respondent Bank contended that the contract for employment, which was duly accepted by the petitioner, only provided leave for medical benefits, and there was no provision for maternity benefits.
It was argued that the RBI's major function was the regulation of bank notes, and maintaining monetary stability in India, and that as such, it would not fall within the 1963 Act.
It was further submitted that alternative remedies were available to the petitioner who chose to invoke the writ jurisdiction without availing of these remedies.
Verdict
Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that the contract for employment of the petitioner, provided for a number of medical benefits, including leave.
It noted that the legal issue for consideration was whether the petitioner had a legal right to seek maternity leave, which was recognised as a beneficial legislation in the 1961 Act.
The Court observed that a plain reading of the Act would suggest that it would be universally applicable over any concern of the government where ten or more people were employed in the preceding twelve months.
The intent to promulgate the said Act was to achieve the object of doing social justice to women workers, it noted.
Court held that notwithstanding the arguments of the respondents, the RBI was endowed with powers of banking and superintendence, and hence would fall under the Shops & Establishments Act.
It further noted that independent of the above, the RBI was providing maternity benefits under its Master Circular, to its employees and not extending the same to the petitioner would be discriminatory as seeking to create a class within a class, and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The same would be detrimental to the future of our country, a healthy mother and a healthy new born child not only ensures to the growth and development of the child but to the nation as well, as the child of today would be the force behind tomorrow's development. Depriving such benefits to the mother and the foetus/child would tantamount to depriving the nation of its future, it concluded.
Accordingly, the plea was allowed, and the RBI was directed to extend compensation to the petitioner in the form of leave with the pay for the period for which it was denied.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Case: Neeta Kumari v Union of India & Ors
Case No: WPA 29978 of 2013