Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed assailing the order dated 06-10-2023 passed by the Single vide the impugned order, the Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent by directing the appellants to grant her maternity and medical benefits for a period of 26 weeks on account of her pregnancy as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. A division bench of Rekha Palli and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., upheld the decision of the Single Judge to grant maternity and medical benefits to the respondent for a period of 26 weeks, as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 on being devoid of merits in the appellant’s argument that the benefits should cease upon the expiry of the respondent’s contractual engagement. The Court also imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the appellants to be paid to the respondent.
The Court observed that “In fact, we are surprised that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which is giving great publicity to the steps being taken to promote the interest of women in Delhi and has under its recently announced scheme i.e., Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojna promised to pay all adult women in the city except those who are tax-payers/government employees or are drawing pension, a monthly sum of Rs.1,000/- in the future has chosen to file such a misconceived appeal to assail an order which grants the benefits under the Act to a young woman, who has with utmost dedication served in the Delhi State Consumer Forum over 5 years.”
The respondent was appointed as a stenographer contractually with the Delhi State Consumer Forum on 07-02-2013. The contractual period was initially set for one year. Following the initial contract, the respondent’s contractual engagement was extended. These extensions were either without any break or with a notional break of one or two days. The respondent had served in her position diligently for over five years, demonstrating unblemished service during her tenure from 2013 until the events leading to the petition. On 28-02-2018, while still under contractual engagement, the respondent applied for maternity leave. She requested leave for 180-days, commencing from 01-03-2018, in accordance with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The appellants declined the respondent’s request for maternity leave benefits citing the impending expiration of the respondent’s contractual engagement on 31-03-2018, as grounds for denial. On this basis, she filed a writ petition seeking redressal for the denial of her entitlement to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Counsel for appellants contended that the expiry of the respondent’s contractual engagement absolved them of any obligation to provide maternity benefits beyond this date. According to their interpretation, the contractual end date served as a limitation on their liability to pay benefits, including maternity leave wages and associated medical benefits. Additionally, the appellants raised concerns regarding the financial implications of extending maternity benefits beyond the contractual period, citing potential strains on the resources of the Delhi State Consumer Forum. Counsel for the respondent asserted her entitlement to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. She argued that the Act mandated the provision of maternity benefits, including leave wages and medical benefits, for 26-weeks. The respondent emphasized that she had complied with all statutory requirements by submitting her application for maternity leave in accordance with the Act’s provisions. She further contended that denying her maternity benefits based solely on the expiry of her contractual engagement would contravene the spirit and intent of the Maternity Benefit Act, which seeks to protect the rights of pregnant women in the workforce.
The Court reiterated the observations and noting’s by Single Judge in the impugned decision wherein he examined the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, with emphasis on Section 5, which governs entitlement to maternity benefits. It was observed that the Act allows for the extension of benefits beyond the contractual period, highlighting the legislative intent to protect the rights of pregnant women in the workforce. This interpretation underscored the importance of upholding the statutory provisions to ensure the welfare of pregnant employees. Moreover, the broader social welfare objectives of the Maternity Benefit Act was emphasized.
The Court underscored the duty of the State and employers to uphold the integrity and objectives of such legislation in line with constitutional principles. By invoking principles of natural justice, the Court scrutinized the appellants’ argument regarding the expiration of the respondent’s contractual engagement. It was noted that denying maternity benefits solely based on the contract term’s expiry would be unjust, particularly given the respondent’s compliance with statutory requirements and the absence of any misconduct allegations.
The Single Judge in the impugned decision remarked as follows:
“It is ironic that the petitioner in the instant case, worked with the State Consumer Forum as a stenographer, is a court staff and assisted in the dispensation of justice by the Forum, however, she had to herself approach this Court for justice since she was not being able to secure the benefits that were necessary for the best interest and welfare of her own child.
This Court is of the considered view that the State being a model employer, is expected to act in line of Constitution and set the benchmark for other employers. Under the veil of contractual service, principles of natural justice and facets of constitutionality cannot be given go bye.”
Thus, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to receive maternity benefits for the full duration of 26 weeks, as stipulated by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and dismissed the appellants’ argument and affirmed the respondent’s rights under the law. The court also ordered the dismissal of the appeal along with all pending applications, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants. These costs were directed to be paid to the respondent within four weeks from the date of the decision.
[GNCTD v. Rehmat Fatima, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1749, decided on 12-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Manisha & Mr. Hitanshu Mishra, Advocates for appelants
Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani and Mr. Syed Mohd. Hassan, Advcates for respondents
