The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Work from Home' can be sought under Section- 5 (5) of Maternity Benefit Act depending on the nature of work.
The single-judge Bench of Justice R Devdas while refusing the said benefit to a Senior Executive Engineer at STARC noted that her work is of sensitive and complicated nature and thus couldn't be carried from home.
Sumissions and Arguements
It was the contention of the petitioner that she has been on maternity leave from 19.08.2020 to 14.02.2021 and availed personal leave from 15.02.2021 to 26.04.2021. During the second wave of COVID-19 and the lockdown announced by the Government of Karnataka, she was given the benefit along with other employees, to work from home during the lockdown period. When the petitioner did not join duty after the sanctioned leave was exhausted, the impugned communication dated 07.08.2021 was issued to the petitioner stating that she was staying away from duty without sanction of leave and the overstay without sanction of leave would be treated as unauthorized absence. She was warned of disciplinary action and deduction in salary.
The petitioner responded to the said communication while pointing out to the benefits that were required to be provided to a woman under maternity, in terms of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and thereafter also exhuasted her remedy with the Central Administrative Tribunal as well.
It was submitted by the Counsel for petitioner that in terms of the directions issued by the Government of India, it is the duty of the respondent-Organisation to provide for Child Care Leave and to permit the petitioner to work from home, until it is declared by the Central Government/State Government that there is no need for its employees to work from home.
Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the benefit of the Act 1961, as applicable to the respondent-Organisation has been granted to the petitioner. However, it was submitted that the third respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is an autonomous body. The third respondent-Society has its own Rules and Regulations and HR policy in the matter of grant of maternity leave and other service benefits. It was also admitted by the respondents in the statement of objections that in the matter of leave and leave concessions, it has adopted the policy of the DRDO and is made applicable to its employees.
He submitted:
"However, in respect of Child Care Leave, in a meeting of the 14th STARC Employees Meet held on 31.03.2018, the fourth respondent has considered the request made by its employees, especially in respect of female employees who sought additional benefits in the form of various policies like child care leave, flexible timings etc; considering the fact that work from home may not be possible at few instances, parenting issues inherited due to lack of such policies should be taken seriously.
It was decided that providing crèche and Day Care facilities as per Maternity Benefit Act, 2017, was an option. However, it was specifically decided that creation of crèche and Day Care facility was not advisable within the premises due to sensitive and risk involved processes, usage of chemicals and toxic gases. Nevertheless, it was also decided that if some of the employees are interested, then the matter can be taken up with The Centre For Artificial Intelligence And Robotics for availing Crèche facilities."
Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that any rate, the respondent-Organisation cannot be equated to the Government of India and the facilities available to the Central Government employees, be it in the nature of providing maternity leave, Child Care Leave and other facilities cannot be automatically adopted to the respondent-Organisation.
High Court's Observation
The Court noted that contentions of the petitioner in respect of grant of child Care Leave, proceeds on the footing that all the employees of STARC, just like the employees of the Government of India are eligible for the said facility, but the same isn't the case.
"Though reference is made to Section 5(5) of the Act, 1961, it is evident from the said provision that maternity benefits such as work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home. In this regard, a specific decision is taken by the fourth respondent-Organisation in its meeting held along with its employees on 31.03.2018, at Annexure ‘R9’, paragraph-26 that the premises of the fourth respondent-Organisation is sensitive and involved with risk due to usage of chemicals and toxic gases. The employees working with the fourth respondent-Organsiation are involved in research work which is both sensitive as well as complicated. Sensitive, in the nature of the work done, in the sense that the research is for the benefit of the Government of India which uses the facility in the defence fields and the research work will not be divulged to the public. This istelf would prove that the nature of work assigned to the petitioner cannot be carried on from home."
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
