Contractual Women Employees Can't Be Denied Maternity Leave Merely Due To Nature Of Employment: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that nature of employment, whether regular, casual or contractual, cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits to a woman employee, where other applicable statutory conditions are fulfilled.

In this regard, any contractual condition, contrary to the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (the “Act”) shall be overridden by the Act.

The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta reasoned that maternity benefit is not merely a service related concession or an ordinary leave facility, but a statutory protection for safeguarding health, dignity and well-being of woman, rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, as well as mandated by Article 42 of the Constitution.

For context, the petitioner was appointed as a consultant, on a contractual basis, by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, during which she applied for maternity leave of 6 months.

This application was rejected by the State on the ground that as per a condition in her appointment order, it was mentioned that no other leaves were allowed except for the ones declared by State Government. Hence, the present petition was filed.

It was the case of the petitioner that as per a letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, women were entitled to maternity benefit, irrespective of being employed in any capacity, whether directly or through an agency, including on a contractual basis or as consultants.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined,

“…maternity leave is not merely a general form of leave available to an employee; rather, it is a statutory entitlement intended to enable a woman to recover her physical strength and well-being following childbirth and to ensure that the child receives the requisite love, care, and affection during the crucial early stages of life. The grant of maternity leave cannot be made contingent solely upon the nature or tenure of employment. Whether a woman is employed on a regular, temporary, ad hoc, urgent temporary, or contractual basis, she cannot be denied maternity leave merely on the ground of the nature of her employment, provided that the applicable legal requirements are satisfied and the period of maternity leave falls within the subsistence of her employment.”

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Rolls) which recognized maternity benefits even for those women who were employed on a casual basis or on a muster roll basis.

Hence, the Court held that nature of employment could not be treated a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits where applicable statutory conditions were fulfilled. Such approach was inconsistent with the protective object of the Act.

The Court further stated that Section 27 of the Act gave an overriding effect of the Act over any inconsistent provisions contained in any other law, award, agreement or contract of service. Hence, a contractual condition, which was in violation of the Act, could not override the applicable statutory framework.

In this background, the Court highlighted that since the period of maternity leave sought by the petitioner fell within her initial contractual tenure, denial of such benefits could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to grant maternity leave to the petitioner.