Case Study: Maternity Benefit Act Protections for Pregnant Employees

Post Views: 62

Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Email

Case Study: Maternity Benefit Act Protections for Pregnant Employees

The Secretary, Managing Committee, Loreto Convent—Appellant

&

Anr. v. Ms. Sharu Gupta & Ors. – Respondent

Court and Judges:

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
Hon’ble Mr. Satyen Vaidya, J.

Case Reference:

LPA No. 76/2024
Decision Date: 13-8-2024

Relevant Law:

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Sections 6, 10, 12, 17
Maternity Benefit Rules, 1973 – Rule 9

Background and Key Facts

Ms. Sharu Gupta, the respondent, was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the appellants. She was dismissed from service while pregnant, without any allegations of misconduct. The dismissal occurred despite Ms. Gupta’s submission of leave applications accompanied by medical prescriptions, which clearly indicated her pregnancy. Ms. Gupta filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, seeking maternity benefits and reinstatement.

The Inspector upheld Ms. Gupta’s complaint, directing her reinstatement and payment of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act protections for pregnant employees. This decision was further affirmed by the Appellate Authority and a Single Judge of the High Court. The appellants appealed against these orders, citing a lack of knowledge of the pregnancy and an unsatisfactory service record.

Issues and Key Legal Points on Maternity Benefit Act protections for pregnant employees

Maternity Benefits During Probation
Issue: Does a pregnant employee on probation qualify for maternity benefits and protection from termination?
Legal Point: Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act prohibits termination based on pregnancy, regardless of probation status, unless gross misconduct is proven.
Court’s Finding: The court ruled that probation does not negate maternity rights, as Ms. Gupta had no allegations of misconduct.

Employer’s Knowledge of Pregnancy
Issue: Can the employer claim ignorance of the pregnancy?
Legal Point: Section 6 allows maternity benefits without advance application.
Court’s Finding: Gupta’s leave applications revealed her pregnancy, invalidating the employer’s claim of ignorance.

Gross Misconduct Requirement for Termination
Issue: Can termination occur without proven gross misconduct?
Legal Point: Section 12 permits termination only for gross misconduct.
Court’s Finding: No misconduct was alleged; the termination was unlawful.

Judgment

Satyen Vaidya, J.–1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 28-12-2023 passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 4122 of 2020, whereby the challenge of the appellants to the order dated 14-09-2020 passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Chief Inspector of Factories-cum-Appellate Authority (for short “the appellate Authority”) under section 17(3) of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) has been rejected.

The services of respondent No. 1 as Assistant Teacher were dispensed with by the appellants vide termination letter dated 20-12-2018. Respondent No. 1 at that time was pregnant. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 had given birth to a child on 12-04-2019.
Respondent No. 1 filed complaint under section 17 of the Act before the Inspector seeking monetary benefits under the Act as also an order for setting aside the termination order. The Inspector after holding an inquiry under the Act, allowed the complaint of respondent No. 1 and directed the appellants to pay to respondent No. 1 maternity benefits under the Act and to take joining of respondent No. 1 on the same post which she was holding.
The appellants unsuccessfully assailed the order passed by the Inspector before the Appellate Authority by invoking provision of section 17(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 14-09-2020 not only affirmed the order passed by the inspector, but also directed the appellants to make additional payment equivalent to three months’ salary to respondent No. 1 as per the provisions contained under section 17(2)(a)(b) of the Act.
The challenge of the appellants to the order passed by the Appellate Authority by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 has also remained unsuccessful. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment impugned in this appeal, has rejected all the pleas raised by the appellants and has resultantly dismissed the petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made endeavour to persuade us to take different view than the one taken by learned Single Judge while affirming the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Inspector. He contended that the termination of the services of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 20-12-2018 had nothing to do with the provisions of the Act; that her services were terminated on account of her unsatisfactory service record in terms of the contract of employment between respondent No. 1 and appellants. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any benefit under the Act, as she had not submitted the requisite applications for maternity leave. As per him, respondent No. 1 had not even informed the appellants about her pregnancy.
The instant appeal is against a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the concurrent findings of fact returned by the authorities under the Act have been affirmed. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to assail such findings before us except on the grounds of gross illegality or perversity committed by the statutory authorities and affirmed by learned Single Judge, while exercising writ jurisdiction.
It has been concurrently held by the statutory authorities under the Act as also the learned Single Judge that the appellants had raised a false defence regarding absence of knowledge as to pregnancy of respondent No. 1. Reliance has been placed on the fact that respondent No. 1was granted leave by the appellants for the period w.e.f. 20-09-2018 to 30-09-2018 and 12-11-2018 to 24-11-2018 on her applications accompanied by medical record, clearly revealing her pregnancy. Along with this appeal, the appellants have preferred an application being CMP No. 4566 of 2024 for placing on record the leave applications of respondent No. 1 and medical prescriptions attached therewith. On perusal of the leave applications dated 26-09-2018 and 24-11-2018, it is revealed that the leave was sought on health issues. The prescription slips annexed with the leave applications left nothing in doubt as to the nature of the health issues faced by respondent No. 1. The prescription slips clearly spelt out that respondent No. 1 was carrying pregnancy at the relevant time. In light of unimpeachable evidence, there cannot be any conclusion but to hold that the appellants had due knowledge of the pregnancy of respondent No. 1 and it had taken false stand before the authorities.
The allegation with respect to the unsatisfactory service record of respondent No. 1, has been held to be not proved on the basis of an undated document allegedly communicated to respondent No. 1 that too without any acknowledgment or receipt from respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for appellants has not been able to challenge such findings. No record has been shown to prove the contrary. It being so, no interference is called for from this Court in the findings of fact recorded by the statutory authorities to above effect.
It has further been contended that the services of respondent No. 1 were on probation and as per the terms of her employment with appellants, no reasons was required to be assigned for termination of the services. While raising such an argument, probably it has been forgotten that the instant matter does not arise from disciplinary proceedings under the service Rules. The matter simply relates to the violation, if any, of the Act and Rules framed there under.
Section 12 of the Act makes it unlawful for the employer of a women to discharge or dismiss her from service during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The only exception has been carved out in respect of dismissal for any prescribed gross misconduct.
Under section 10 of the Act a woman suffering from illness arising out of pregnancy is entitled to leave with wages for a maximum period of one month. Therefore, the leave availed by respondent No. 1 for the periods between 20-09-2018 to 30-09-2018 and 12-11-2018 to24-11-2018 was authorized under the aforesaid provision, more particularly, when respondent No. 1 was pregnant at that time and was facing illness on account of pregnancy.
The contention that respondent No. 1 had not submitted any application for maternity leave also evidences intent of appellants to cover up their own illegalities. The Appellate Authority under the Act has rightly held that the submissions of advance application/request for maternity leave was neither sine-qua-non nor mandatory. The holistic reading of section 6 of the Act, admits of no other interpretation. The provision of sub-section 6 of section 6 of the Act clearly provides that the failure to give notice under section 6 of the Act is no ground to disentitle a woman to maternity benefits under the Act, if she is otherwise entitled to such benefits. The appellants has not been able to show any disability carried by respondent No. 1which makes her disentitled for maternity benefits under the Act.
This also is not a case, where respondent No. 1 is alleged to be guilty of any gross misconduct under section 12(2)(a) of the Act. The gross misconduct has been defined in Rule 9 of the Maternity Benefits Rules, 1973. Admittedly, there is no allegations against respondent No. 1 to attract mischief of aforesaid Rules.
In light of above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the appellants to respondent No. 1, as the appellants after having committed illegality, have been dragging respondent No. 1 in prolonged litigation without any justifiable cause.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.

Conclusion

The case reinforces the protective scope of the Maternity Benefit Act for pregnant employees, including those on probation. By upholding maternity rights and rejecting unjustifiable defenses, the court has sent a clear message regarding the unlawful termination of pregnant employees. This judgment serves as a critical reminder for employers to comply with maternity benefit regulations and highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny in upholding employee rights.