Is Maternity Leave Co-Terminus with Tenure?

Introduction

Maternity leaves, as recognised by the legislation Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (the “Act”), are crucial to safeguard the health of a mother and child through the process of childbirth and after care. The Act was introduced to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with flexibility to live both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire. The maternity benefits commence before childbirth and continues until after childbirth.

Organisations with ten (10) or more employees must provide maternity benefits to any woman who has worked for an organisation for at least eighty (80) days. But what of the employees who work on a contractual basis or whose employment is bound to end amidst their pregnancy? The Supreme Court has recently passed a judgment for circumstances of such peculiar nature.

Courts on the Subject

In Dr Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, the appellant, was appointed for a fixed term, extending for a maximum period of 3 years. Post the extension, her contract was bound to end on 11 June 2017. Kavita applied for maternity benefits commencing from 1 June 2017, but the employer informed her that she could be granted only 11 days of the benefit for her tenure close to ending. That her application for maternity leave was not admissible. The appellant challenged this action before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the “Tribunal”) and subsequently before the Delhi High Court, only to be unsuccessful on both junctures.

The Tribunal

Aggrieved by her employer’s stance, the appellant sought relief from the Tribunal for grant of maternity leave. The Tribunal held that contractual employment has a specific time limit. If the conditions do not permit extension of employment, it comes to an end upon termination.

In the present case, the three years period ended on June 11, 2017. The Tribunal held that grant of maternity leave beyond that period will not be admissible and that the relief sought by the appellant was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The Delhi High Court

The appellant filed an application before the High Court contending that solely for the reason that her employment was limited upto 3 years, and expiring on June 11, 2017, she could be denied maternity leave and other benefits from her employer.

The High Court focused on the phrase “actual absence” to imply that absence can only be calculated on the basis of when the employee is expected to be present at her workplace. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant was actually absent only upto 11 June 2017 and not a day beyond it. The High Court further stated that granting such a relief was tantamount to extending the period of contract and therefore the appeal held no merit.

Maternity leave is not sick leave and should not, under any circumstance, reduce sick leave entitlements, either before or after childbirth.

Supreme Court

The appellant yet again filed an appeal before the Supreme Court expressing dissatisfaction with the ruling of the High Court. Reliance was placed upon Section 5 of the Act, which states 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, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day."

It was further contended that in accordance with the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act once the female employee has rendered service for 180 days continuously prior to the expected date of delivery, she would be entitled to maternity benefit. It is important to note here that the Act was amended in 2017 to reduce the work duration down to 80 days within the previous 12 months.

The respondent submitted that any benefits that the appellant would be entitled to ought to be within the contractual period. That te maternity benefit cannot cause a notional extension of the contract.

The Supreme Court shed light on Section 12(2)(a) of the Act which clearly states that despite dismissal or discharge of the employee, she has the right to attain the maternity benefit in full:

"Continuation of maternity benefits is in-built in the statute itself, where the benefits would survive and continue despite the cessation of employment. In our opinion, what this legislation envisages is entitlement to maternity benefits, which accrues on fulfillment of the conditions specified in Section 5(2) thereof, and such benefits can travel beyond the term of employment also. It is not co-terminus with the employment tenure."

This leads us to Section 27 of the Act, which gives overriding effect to the statute on any award, agreement, or contract of service. The Supreme Court also extended such benefits to workers engaged on a casual basis or on muster roll on daily wages in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll).

It was reiterated by the Court that since the appellant had fulfilled the entitlement criteria specified in Section 5(2) of the Act, she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract. The same view is reflected in the case of Dipika Singh v CAT where the court stated that in light of the ratio and with regard to the overriding nature of section 27, the High Court had erred in law when not granting maternity benefit to the appellant.

The judgment and order of the High Court were set aside and as a consequence thereof, the Tribunal's decision also stood invalidated.

Conclusion

The observation of the Supreme Court that the word “discharge” under section 12(2)(a) includes even “discharge on conclusion of contract period” potentially extends the impact of judgement discussed above to cases where term of contract had expired and the woman had not even started availing maternity benefits.