Employers Must Realise Difficulties Women Face During Childbirth: Bombay High Court Directs AAI To Grant Maternity Benefit To Employee For Third Childbirth

The Bombay High Court recently observed that employers must acknowledge the physical challenges working women face during pregnancy and while caring for their children and provide all benefits to which they are entitled to facilitate the childbirth.

“Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work, they must be provided with all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth”, the court observed.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain directed Airports Authority of India to grant maternity benefit within eight weeks to an employee for her third childbirth as her first child was born before she joined AAI and she didn't avail the benefits for the second childbirth.

The court allowed a writ petition filed by AAI Workers Union and a female employee challenging communications dated January 28, 2014 and March 31, 2014 issued by the AAI rejecting the maternity leave benefit application of the employee. AAI cited the grounds that she had more than two surviving children, thus rendering her ineligible for maternity leave as per the Airport Authority of India (Leave) Regulations 2003.

“The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period and, therefore, it is in that context that the condition of two surviving children is imposed. We have already opined above as to how this condition is not applicable to the fact situation before us”, the court held.

The petitioner was earlier married to an AAI employee and had one child with him. After her husband's death, she was appointed by AAI on compassionate grounds as a Junior Attendant in 2004. In 2008, she remarried and had two children from her second marriage, one in 2009 and the other in 2012. She applied for maternity leave benefits after the birth of her child in 2012, but her application was rejected by AAI. Thus, she approached the High Court.

The court highlighted Article 42 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. It emphasized Article 15(3), empowering the State to enact beneficial provisions for women's interests, and Article 21, recognizing the right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity, including the right to reproduction and child-rearing.

Referring to the Supreme Court's interpretation in B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, the court elucidated the objective of maternity leave legislation: to ensure social justice to women workers, allowing them to recover from childbirth, nurse their child, and maintain their efficiency as workers.

The court analysed the relevant provisions of the AAI Leave Regulations 2003, noting that a female employee with fewer than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave twice during her service period. It interpreted this provision to mean that the condition of "two surviving children" applies only to children born during the employee's service period.

The court noted that the maternity leave regulations are typically drafted with the assumption that a female employee marries once and gives birth thereafter. It said that the circumstance of remarriage resulting in the birth of a child is not contemplated by the maternity leave regulations and is an exceptional circumstance.

Emphasizing the role of the court in understanding the purpose of laws and adapting to changing social realities, the court asserted that beneficial regulations like maternity leave provisions should be interpreted liberally to fulfil their objectives. “The respect and protection of woman and of maternity should be raised to the position of an inalienable social duty and should become one of the principles of human morality”, the court added.

The court noted that the first child was born before the petitioner joined the employment of AAI. It opined that denying maternity leave based on the child from the first marriage would be unjust and contrary to the purpose of the Regulation. It rejected AAI's argument that being the biological mother of more than two children disqualifies her from maternity benefits.

Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8744 of 2015

Case Title – Airports Authority of India Workers Union and Anr. v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India and Anr.