Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh: MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT EXTENDED!

INTRODUCTION

In a recent ruling by a single Judge bench of Allahabad High Court, the provisions under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961[i] were extended to working women even after the birth of the child.

The bench consisting of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava scrutinized subsection (1)[ii] and (3)[iii] and (4)[iv] of Section 5 of 1961 Act in light of the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the preamble opined that a woman can avail maternity leaves even after the birth of the child and such benefits can even be extended in a case of legal adoption of a child of less than three months.

FACTS

The petitioner was working as a headmistress at a primary school in Heerapur, Etah District under the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj. Her service was governed by Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.[v]

The petitioner had recently given birth to a daughter and subsequently applied for maternity leave online immediately after being discharged from the hospital. She requested leave for the duration of October 18, 2022 to April 15, 2023, totalling 180 days. However, her application was denied due to incomplete supporting documents and annexures.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another application for maternity leave using the prescribed proforma on October 30, 2022. However, the District Basic Education Officer, Etah turned down her application on November 4, 2022 and November 25, 2022. The officer’s rationale behind rejecting the applications was that maternity leave cannot be allowed after birth of the child and all she is entitled to is leave under Child Care Leave provisions as per the rules.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Basic Education Officer she filed a writ petition in the High Court, wherein she argued that childcare leave is not subservient to maternity benefits and both serve a distinctive objective. The petitioner contended that the denial of maternity leave on the ground that the child was already born is illegal and erroneous. The respondent on the other hand defended the order and claimed its validity.

ISSUES

Whether childcare leave is distinctive from maternity benefits and hence as such operate in different fields?
Whether denial of maternity leave on the ground that child is born is illegal and erroneous?

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Subsection (1) of Section 5[vi] of the 1961 Act provides that every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for the six weeks immediately following that day.

The spirit behind the enactment of the 1961 act was to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women maximum flexibility for them to live a self-sufficient both as a mother and as a worker.

The intention behind granting of maternity benefits is to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. Further, the court noted that against the backdrop of the preamble of the act, the provisions of the act were made by the parliament to ensure that the absence of women from workplace due to pregnancy and childbirth does not in any way hinder her entitlement to receive wages for that period.

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT

The petitioner’s learned counsel has presented compelling arguments in favour of quashing the orders passed by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Firstly, the counsel argued that the rejection of the petitioner’s maternity leave was erroneous and thus warrants a writ of certiorari. In support of this argument, the counsel cited the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others,[vii] where a similar controversy was allowed and decided in favour of the petitioner.
Moreover, the counsel argued that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, permits maternity benefits even after the birth of a child. Hence, denying maternity leave to the petitioner would be illegal. This contention underscores the importance of recognizing the rights of working mothers to take care of their new-borns without jeopardizing their employment.
Finally, the learned counsel pointed out that Child Care Leave is distinct from maternity benefit, and the respondents have erroneously stopped the petitioner’s salary since November and December 2022, which is unwarranted. This argument highlights the respondent’s misinterpretation of the law and the need for the petitioner to receive her salary and other employment benefits.
In conclusion, the petitioner’s learned counsel has presented strong and convincing arguments, underscoring the need to quash the orders passed by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and allow the petitioner to avail her rightful maternity benefits.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

The counsel representing Respondent 01 & 02, Shri Shailendra Singh, who is a learned standing counsel for State, strongly opposed the petitioner’s prayer. He argued that the ratio laid down in Smt. Anupam Yadav is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the petitioner’s plea cannot be granted based on this precedent.
Similarly, the counsel for Respondent 03 to 06, Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, also vehemently opposed the petitioner’s plea. He argued that the orders in question were just and proper and without any infirmity or illegality. Therefore, the petitioner’s request should not be entertained.

ANALYSIS

The present judgment is related to the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the entitlements of women to maternity and child care leave. The court in the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others examined the applicability of the Act and concluded that maternity leave will be governed by the Act. The court further referred to the preamble, Section 3(h) and Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and held that the Act secures women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave, enabling them to live an autonomous life.
The court also held that maternity leave can be extended after birth, legal adoption, or less than three months, subject to the restriction that it cannot be granted for 180 days or 26 weeks. In another case, Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others,[viii] the Apex Court held that women are entitled to child care leave for taking care of their two eldest surviving children, independent of the grant of maternity leave. The court emphasized that maternity leave and other facilitative measures are crucial for women to remain in the workplace, as they may be compelled to give up work due to social circumstances.
The overall analysis of the case highlights the significance of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 in securing women’s rights to maternity leave and child care leave and enabling them to lead an autonomous life. The judgment underscores the importance of providing facilitative measures to enable women to remain in the workforce, promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.

CONCLUSION

Prior to this judgment, maternity benefits were not extended to working women after the delivery of the child which had several implications. Women who were employed did not have access to paid leaves which resulted in financial strain for women and their families, as they were deprived of income during a crucial time when they needed to recover from childbirth and care for their infants. It had economic implications which affected their financial stability, career progression, retirement benefits and reduced career opportunity. Moreover, women were often forced to return to work soon after giving birth which had adverse health effects on both the mother and the new born.

The gender-based discrimination was addressed by the court. The impact of the decision is likely to be significant for it will provide much-needed relief to women who had to juggle between their careers and the demands of motherhood. The struggle between choosing the two led to women dropping out of the workforce altogether, which in turn aggravated gender inequality and limits economic growth. High Court’s decision will make it easier for women to take time off from work to care for their children without fear of losing their jobs or facing financial hardship and will promote gender equality in the workplace.

Read the complete Judgement at: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN – WRIT – A No. 2211 of 2023 at Allahabad Dated-14.3.2023 CASE TITLE – Saroj Kumari Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others (allahabadhighcourt.in)

[i] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act No. 53 of 1961)

[ii] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act No. 53 of 1961) S 5(1)

[iii] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act No. 53 of 1961) S 5(3)

[iv] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act No. 53 of 1961) S 5(4)

[v] Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Avaliable at: https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_UP_88_1425_00001_00001_1594817432212&type=rule&filename=the_u.p._basic_education_(teachers)_service_rules,_1981.pdf

[vi] Supra Note ii

[vii] 2022 SCC OnLine All 728

[viii] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088.