All Female Employees Entitled To Benefit Of 180 Days Maternity Leave Under Maternity Benefit Act: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that granting only 90 days of maternity leave to female employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) based on Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (“1965 Regulations”) instead of 180 days as mandated by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”) after the 2017 amendment, was not only...
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that granting only 90 days of maternity leave to female employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) based on Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (“1965 Regulations”) instead of 180 days as mandated by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”) after the 2017 amendment, was not only discriminatory but also violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recommended RSRTC to amend the Regulation 74 of 1965 Regulations and increase 90 days maternity leave to 180 days.
Furthermore, the Court issued a general mandamus to the Government of India, Ministry of Personal Public Grievance and Pension, to issue necessary instructions to all unrecognized and private sectors to make suitable amendments in their provisions for granting 180 days of maternity benefits to female employees.
“The respondent-RSRTC is trying to take shelter of Regulation 74 of the Regulations of 1965. Such Regulation has become an ancient provision, in view of the subsequent Acts of the Central and the State Governments, whereby the ceiling limit of Maternity Leave has been increased to 180 days and Section 5 of the Act of 1961 has also been amended in the year 2017. Hence, under these changed circumstances, all female employees are entitled to get the benefit of Maternity Leave, in terms of the 2017 amendment. The Regulation of 1965 do not overrule the amended provisions of the Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2017. The Regulation 74 of the Regulations of 1965 is liable to be amended now, as the same is the need of hour.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a pregnant woman working as a conductor with RSRTC seeking direction on the department to increase her maternity leave from 90 days to 180 days.
The Court highlighted the importance of the early years of parenthood for both mother and child, during which the women need adequate rest, medical care, and emotional support. It observed that maternity leave was not just a benefit but a right supporting women's fundamental needs.
“The care that Indian mothers receive before and after they have a child, is ingrained in our Indian culture. Therefore, it makes sense to have the same care, even at the workplace. This is possible only when proper and adequate Maternity Leave is allowed.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr. and observed that through the case, the equitable right of maternity benefits under the 1961 Act was extended to all women employees in both organized and unorganized sector regardless of their nature of employment.
In the case, the Apex Court invoked the Doctrine of Social Justice and Article 11 of the UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women to direct Delhi Municipal Corporation to extend the benefits of the 1961 Act to its muster-roll women employees also apart from its regular employees and had held that:
“A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood…The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during the pre-or post-natal period.
Furthermore, the Court also referred to the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, in which the maternity relief was held to be a fundamental right under Article 21. And further in Chanda Keswani v State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court extended right to life to not only cover right of motherhood but also the right of the child to get love, bond of affection and full care and attention.
In the background of these cases, the Court stated that maternity benefits were not only derived from statutory rights or contractual agreements but were fundamental and integral aspects of a woman's identity and dignity. The Court further held that any attempt to obstruct a woman's fundamental right to bear a child violated the fundamental rights under the Constitution and also contradicted principles of social justice.
Hence, the Court ruled that granting only 90 days of maternity leave to RSRTC women employees was discriminatory and by limiting the number of maternity leave, the department was denying equal opportunity to women employees of RSRTC for the reasons of their maternity right of bearing children.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and RSRTC was suggested to amend the 1975 Regulation, along with a general mandamus to Government of India to issue directions to all unrecognized and private sectors to amend their provision in line with the 1961 Act.
Title: Minakshi Chaudhary v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 248