Karnataka High Court Stays Govt Order To Provide Menstrual Leave In Registered Industrial Establishments

Update - After Staying Menstrual Leave Order, Karnataka High Court Agrees To Hear State Tomorrow

The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (December 9)  stayed the November 20 government notification mandating industrial establishments registered under various laws, to provide one day paid menstrual leave per month to all permanent, contract, outsourced women employees. 

Justice Jyoti M in its order said “The Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondent, there shall be an interim order as prayed for, liberty to seek modification of the order. Government to file a statement of objections relist after winter vacation."

The interim order was passed while hearing the petition filed by Bangalore Hotels Association and Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited.

Counsel for petitioners argued that the Government has issued an executive order which directs establishments to provide menstrual leave. The counsel said, "My submission is that the statutes under which the industries operate provide comprehensive leave policy. None of the statutes has got any provisions mandating menstrual leave".

The bench then queried whether the government had heard the management or not before issuing the notification. The counsel replied in the negative. Following which the court passed the interim order.

The plea states that currently the association has around 1540 establishments/owners as its active members. It has been formed with the purpose of promoting and protecting the interest of the members through representation, consultation, advocacy, education besides fostering harmonious relations between its members.

It states that the statutes under which the establishments are registered primarily regulate health, welfare and overall working conditions of the employees including hours of work, weekly holidays, leave with wages etc.

That apart, clause 9 of the Model Standing Orders appended to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, mandates the employers to provide leave with pay as provided under the Factories Act, 1948, and other holidays in accordance with law, contract, custom and usage.

Further, clause 10 of the Model Standing Orders provides for casual leave and a workmen may be granted casual leave of absence with or without pay not exceeding 10 days in a calendar year.

It states that these establishments are registered under various laws such as the Factories Act, Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Plantations Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act, and the leaves are restricted to 12 days per annum.

The plea states that there is a comprehensive statutory framework through the aforesaid statutes mandating the employers to provide sufficient leave to the employees. However, the notification issued by the state government is not supported by any legislative enactment.

In other words, there is no specific provision in the statutes mentioned hereinabove mandating employers to provide menstrual leave to the female employees and as such, the Government is not empowered to direct the industrial establishments to provide menstrual leave by way of an executive order.

The plea claims that the respondent instead of leaving it to the employers to decide appropriately on granting of menstrual leave as part of their HR policies, has unnecessarily interfered in the affairs of the employers.

It is also claimed that respondent has not issued any preliminary notification seeking objections from the stakeholders, proposing the menstrual leave and as such, the Impugned notification has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, granting of menstrual leave is likely to cause additional financial burden depending upon the size of the female employees and as such, it causes serious civil consequences, the petitioner has said.

Accordingly the plea seeks quashing of the notification as being unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Case Title: BANGALORE HOTELS ASSOCIATION (R) AND Government of Karnataka

Case No: WP WP 36659/2025 c/w WP 37122/2025

Appearance: Advocate Prashanth B K for Petitioner