Giving Birth, Taking Care Of Child Not Only Fundamental Right Of A Woman But Also A Pious Role For Society's Existence: HP High Court

A bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur added,

“To conceive, to give birth and take care of a child is not only the fundamental right of the woman but also a pious role to be performed by her for the existence of Society. Keeping in view the arduous nature of this duty, she must be provided facilities to which she is entitled”.

Background:

The case revolves around respondent Sharu Gupta, who, after being appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a contract basis and subsequently placed on probation, faced termination during her pregnancy. The school management terminated her services, alleging unsatisfactory performance, but the Labour Inspector and the Appellate Authority found the termination to be a strategic move to avoid providing maternity benefits.

Assailing the decision the petitioner's school management argued that Sharu had failed to inform the school about her pregnancy and did not apply for maternity leave. They contended that her termination was in accordance with service rules and justified due to her alleged unsatisfactory service record.

In response, Sharu asserted that the school was aware of her pregnancy, as evidenced by her previous leaves. She maintained that she verbally communicated her intention to go on maternity leave after the winter vacation and was terminated to avoid extending maternity benefits.

Court Observations:

After meticulously examining the available record Justice Thakur debunked the petitioner's claim that Sharu Gupta did not inform them of her pregnancy. The court highlighted the school's denial despite granting her leave during the initial stages of her pregnancy.

The bench recorded,

“Conduct of petitioners is not above board as there is a complete denial on the part of petitioners about knowledge of pregnancy of complainant despite the fact that in the months of September and November 2018 complainant was granted leave by petitioners on account of initial stage of pregnancy as advised by doctor”.

Deliberating on the contention of the petitioners that Section 6(1) of the Maternity Act and Service Rules provide that before proceeding on maternity leave, written information by the beneficiary is necessary, the bench observed,

“There is no dispute with respect to aforesaid provisions. However this provision is to be read with other provisions of the Act including Section 6(2) which provides that pregnant employee can remain absent from the work on pregnancy but not being a date earlier than six weeks from the date of her expected delivery”.

Citing Sunita Baliyan vs. Director Social Welfare Department, Government of NCT of New Delhi, reported in (2007) the court reitarated that provisions of Act do not mandate that a woman is immediately required to intimate the employer about her pregnancy for claiming benefit of the Act but it certainly calls upon her to give a notice in writing during her pregnancy as soon as possible after delivery.

Emphasising the natural right of women to motherhood, invoking constitutional directives and international covenants Justice Thakur stressed the duty to protect this fundamental right and strictly enforce the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

“The right to become a mother is also one of the most important human right and this right must be protected at all costs and therefore, provisions of Maternity Benefit Act must be enforced strictly wherever applicable”, the court recorded.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the school's appeal and upheld the lower authority's orders. Furthermore, the court awarded her an additional compensation of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement, declaring that "any intent to thwart the grant of maternity benefits should be dealt with seriously."

Case Title: The Secretary, Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School Vs Sharu Gupta and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment