The Madras High Court recently held that welfare legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities while dismissing an appeal filed by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a single judge order directing the organisation to pay maternity benefits to a temporary employee.
Brief Facts:
This Writ Appeal was filed challenging the order of a Judge dated 31.01.2022 made in W.P.No.1754 of 2018, in and by which, there was a direction issued to the respondents/Appellants herein to treat the Writ Petitioner's maternity leave period from 19.03.2014 to 19.07.2014 and 20.07.2014 to 14.09.2014 as duty period for all purposes.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Appellant Transport Corporation has filed the present Writ Appeal, stating that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 16.09.2013 only on a temporary basis. As such, she is not entitled to any maternity leave with service benefits. As per the Rules, a woman employee with the regular pay scale, upon completion of one year of service alone can claim the maternity benefits on the production of a medical certificate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent submitted that wages and benefits for the period of maternity leave cannot be taken away except in accordance with law and in the light of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act, 1961'), no woman shall be deprived of maternity benefits, if she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer for a period of fewer than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery. Further, as per Rules enacted by the Tamil Nadu Government, namely, Tamil Nādu Maternity Benefits Rules, 1967 in consonance with Section 28 of the Act, 1961, there was no discrimination in respect of women based on their status or their nature of employment. Lastly, the respondent cited Article 42 of the Constitution of India which stipulates the provisions of maternity relief in an egalitarian manner by the States, Article 39(d) Part IV which speaks about the disparity between men and women and Article 51A(g) which again renounces for disparity and derogatory treatment of women.
Observations of the Court:
The court cited the examples of Japan, Pakistan, Singapore etc. for their liberal approach to maternity leaves and held that India must also give it a wider application so as to benefit the women at large. Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice. Mohammed Shaffiq further noted the significance of maternity benefits for women, saying that a woman should not be forced to juggle motherhood and work like a pendulum and that even in Hindu mythology, women who gave their lives for their families were regarded on par with God.
The court also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster-roll) and another, where the Supreme Court ruled that women who worked casually or on muster rolls for daily wages should be provided with maternity benefits. As a result, the court did not want to alter the single judge's decision. The corporation was ordered by the sole judge to pay the sum within a four-month period, but since that time had already passed, the court gave the corporation another four months to pay the amount, or else it would be charged a fee of 50,000 rupees.
Decision of the Court:
The appeal was rejected and dismissed.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd and another v. B Rajeswari
Coram: Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice. Mohammed Shaffiq
Case No.: W.A.No.1692 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11739 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. T. Chandrasekaran
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P. Paramasivadoss
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
