Duty Of Labour Commissioner To Refer Application For Maternity Benefits To Inspector Even If Erroneously Submitted: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that even if the application for maternity benefits was erroneously submitted by an employee before the Labour Commissioner, it is the duty of the Commissioner to refer the same to the Inspector as provided under Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Brief Facts: The Petitioner, employed as an...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that even if the application for maternity benefits was erroneously submitted by an employee before the Labour Commissioner, it is the duty of the Commissioner to refer the same to the Inspector as provided under Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner, employed as an Assistant Manager (HR) with Yutika Natural Pvt. Ltd., applied for maternity benefits as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. However, in the absence of any decision on her application, she approached the Labour Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act of 1961. Contrary to the expected referral to the Inspector as outlined in Section 14, the Labour Commissioner instead referred the matter under Section 10 of the Act of 1947, treating the Petitioner's complaint as an industrial dispute. Feeling aggrieved, she approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ petition.
The Petitioner contended that Section 17 of the Act of 1961 explicitly mandates that the matter be decided by the Inspector, appointed in accordance with Section 14 of the Act.
On the other side, the management argued that the Petitioner approached the court with unclean hands and alleged that she made material suppressions in the petition.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court referred to Section 17 of the Act of 1961. The provision explicitly states that any woman claiming maternity benefit or any other entitled amount under the Act, or any person alleging wrongful withholding of payment, may lodge a complaint with the Inspector appointed as per Section 14 of the Act by the State Government.
The High Court held that even if the Petitioner mistakenly submitted her application for maternity benefits before the Labour Commissioner, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to refer the matter to the Inspector as mandated under Section 17 of the Act of 1961.
Consequently, the High Court held that the impugned order, which referred the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, treating it as an industrial dispute, cannot be sustained in accordance with the law and is thus set aside.
Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Labour Commissioner with instructions to refer the matter to the Inspector as prescribed under Section 17 of the Act of 1961.
Case Title: Namrata Golhani Sahu Vs Labour Commissioner And Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 28164 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Amay Bajaj, P.L. For The State And Shri Dinesh Rawat, Advocate For Respondent No.3vvv