Introduction
Madras High Court in its latest judgement, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd. v B. Rajeswari, held that Benefits of welfare legislation cannot be deprived on mere technicalities. The issue concerned Rajeswari, who began working as an assistant engineer (AE) at TNSTC’s Erode branch in 2013. She was granted maternity leave, but at a loss of pay, citing the failure to complete the required number of days of work to become a permanent employee.
Facts of the case
B. Rajeshwari upon completion of her studies was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore. She got married during the training period but continued with the job. As she was pregnant, she made a request for the grant of maternity leave of 180 days with full pay and benefits but she was granted leave on loss of pay. After the child’s delivery, she continued the remaining training period and was paid ₹7500 monthly.
She made various representations to avail full salary for the time of maternity leave and to refix her seniority, disappointed by the response she filed a writ petition on the ground that the wages and benefits for the period of maternity leave cannot be taken away except in accordance with the law.
It was also brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court by the petitioner that the maternity leave admissible to a married woman Government servant was enhanced to 90 days by the State Government which was further enhanced to 180 days in 2011, with an option of spread over from the pre-confinement rest to post-confinement recuperation.
Legal Principles Involved
- Section 5(2) ofThe Maternity Benefits Act, 1961[1] (hereinafter, “the Act, 1961”), states that:
“No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than one hundred and sixty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery:
Provided that the qualifying period of one hundred and sixty days aforesaid shall not apply to a woman who has immigrated into the State of Assam and was pregnant at the time of the immigration.”
- Tamil Nadu Maternity Benefits Rules, 1967[2] in consonance with Section 28 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which says that there should be no discrimination in respect of women based on their status or their nature of employment.
- Article 42[3] of the Constitution of India stipulates the provisions of the maternity relief in an egalitarian manner by the States and Article 39(d) Part IV speaks about the disparity among men and women and Article 51A(g) again renounces for disparity and derogatory treatment of women.
Arguments by Appellant
- That there is no provision for grant of eligible maternity leave during the training period. She cannot claim it as a matter of right because the conditions are not fulfilled and that, she was appointed on a temporary basis whereas the rules state that a woman shall be a permanent employee for at least one year to claim the maternity leave benefits.
- That non-permanent women employee, who have actually worked in the Corporation for a period of not less than 160 days in twelve months would be eligible to demand maternity leave and since the Petitioner had worked only for 145 days, she is not eligible to get the maternity leave benefits under the relevant provisions of Rules.
Arguments by Petitioner
- It will be against various rulings of the Judicature of Supreme Court and High Courts because maternity benefits should be granted with full payment in order to facilitate the women employees in taking care of the child.
- It will be an atrocious act to interpret the Act in an irrational manner to escape liability and discrimination based on temporary or permanent employees. It should be interpreted in a manner that is beneficial to the aggrieved. Therefore, she should be paid maternity benefits at the rate of her average daily wage.
Judgment and Reasoning by Hon’ble Court
The Corporation rules state that “A non-permanent woman employee should have actually worked in the Corporation for a period of not less than 160 days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery to become entitled to Maternity leave under this Rule.”[4]
The narrow interpretation that an employee should actually work for a minimum of 160 days falling into actual 12 months is irrational and if an employee completes 160 days even in less than 12 months that should be acceptable.
The case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation[5] was taken into consideration which held that the principle laid down therein under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972[6] is that the employee should have completed the required number of days within the time stipulated and that the Writ Petitioner herein has completed the same.
Legislation can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the circumstances but it should not dilute the legislative intent behind the framing of that law. Though both Central and State Governments have been liberally implementing various schemes for the welfare and upliftment of women, a woman should be taken due care during her pregnancy as the lives of two i.e baby and the mother depend on the care taken during maternity leave. In the process of development of the foetus, there would be several changes in the body of a woman. The mental agony and pain undergone by a woman during the pregnancy period would no longer be seen on the face of a woman after giving birth to a baby.
The Court also relied on Municipal Corp. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll)[7], wherein it was held that “female workers, even working on casual basis or on muster roll on daily-wage basis should be given maternity benefit, and a woman employee cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour at the time of advanced pregnancy”.
Conclusion
The Court held that the respondent had provided sufficient days of service, and even if there is a shortage of working days in the twelve calendar months, welfare legislation and benefits cannot be denied based on mere interpretation and technicalities, as interpretation of law should be liberal to ensure marching towards enforcement and should not defeat the very purpose of the welfare scheme.
Furthermore, it stated that a woman is not a pendulum and cannot be compelled to choose between motherhood and employment because the maternity benefit is related to a woman’s dignity. Thus, TNSTC’s ruling denying the respondent of maternity leave and other benefits is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
As a result, the Court ordered TNSTC to comply with the directives of a Single Judge within four months. Failure to comply would result in a ₹ 50,000 fine to be collected from the authorities responsible for disbursing the money.
[1] The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act No. 53 Of 1961) S.5
[2] The Tamil Nadu Maternity Benefit Rules, 1967, Go.Ms.No.2610
[3] The Constitution of India, 1950 art 42
[4]Rule 5 (iv) of Annexure II Corporation Leave Rules.
[5]Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, 1985 II LLJ 539.
[6]Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (Act no. 39 of 1972).
[7]Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), 2000 3 SCC 224.
Image Credits: Ipleaders.in
Leave a Reply