The Court was of the opinion that giving birth should be interpreted in the context of employment as a natural incident of life, and the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are required to be construed in that perspective. Additionally, the Court was of the opinion that the Maternity Leave Act should be interpreted in this manner.
In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a woman is eligible for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (Act) even after the birth of her child [Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
Ashutosh Srivastava, sitting as a sole judge, was of the opinion that the Act gives a woman the right to take maternity leave even after the birth of her child, and that this benefit can even be extended in the case of a legal adoption of a child who is less than three months old.
“The Act of 1961 was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire,” the Court noticed.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Saroj Kumari seeking a writ of certiorari against an order issued by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah, in which she was denied maternity leave on the grounds that it cannot be granted after child birth. According to the order, the petitioner can only apply for child care leave under the Act.
The petitioner was assigned to the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, as headmistress of the primary school in Heerapur, Etah district. The petitioner’s working conditions were governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.
The petitioner gave birth to a girl child on October 15, 2022, and after being discharged from the hospital, she immediately applied for maternity leave from October 18, 2022 to April 15, 2023. (for 180 days). However, it was rejected because the annexures supporting maternity leave were missing.
On October 30, 2022, the petitioner applied for maternity leave again in the prescribed proforma, but it was denied by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah, who stated that the petitioner is not entitled to maternity leave after child birth and is only eligible for child care leave, and thus she can only apply for child care leave.
The petitioner, who was upset, went to the High Court.
The petitioner stated before the Court that the 1961 Act was enacted by the parliament to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments during certain periods before and after child birth, as well as to provide maternity leave and certain other benefits. As a result, denying the petitioner maternity leave on the grounds that the child was born and thus the petitioner is not entitled to maternity leave is illegal and erroneous.
It was also argued that child care leave is distinct from maternity leave and operates in different fields, and that forcing the petitioner to take child care leave was completely unnecessary.
Furthermore, it was stated that the respondents had stopped paying the petitioner’s salary since November and December of 2022.
Respondents, on the other hand, have supported the dismissal order and stated that it is without flaw.
The Court considered the purpose of the 1961 Act, which was enacted to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments during certain periods before and after childbirth, as well as to provide for maternity benefits and other benefits.
The Court then looked at Section 5 of the Act, which addresses the reimbursement of maternity benefits to a woman for the period of her actual absence beginning with the period immediately preceding her delivery, the actual day of her delivery, and any period immediately following that day. The provision also specifies the maximum period for which a woman may receive maternity benefits.
“These provisions have been made by Parliament to ensure that the absence of a woman away from the place of work occasioned by the delivery of a child does not hinder her entitlement to receive wages for that period or for that matter for the period during which she should be granted leave in order to look after her child after the birth takes place.”
The Supreme Court emphasised that a woman is entitled to maternity leave in accordance with Section 5, even after the birth of her child. “From the perusal of the Preamble of the Act, Section 5 (1), third proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 5, sub-section 4 of Section 5, it is more than apparent that the Maternity Benefit can be extended even after birth of a child. It can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child or less than three months.”
The Court warned that maternity leave may not last 180 days or 26 weeks. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others (2022) regarding the petitioner’s child care leave option and opined that
“Availability of child care leave to the petitioner or grant of the same cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit. Maternity benefit and child care leave both operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive.”
Regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1961, the Court was of the opinion that a purposive interpretation is required to be adopted because the purpose of the grant of maternity leave is to make it easier for women to continue working in the workplace.
“It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of the child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are required to be construed in that perspective,” the Court noticed.
As a result, the Court overturned the order of the District Basic Education Officer of Etah, who had not granted the petitioner maternity leave following the birth of her child. Furthermore, the Education officer was directed to release the arrears of salary and pay the petitioner’s salary on a monthly basis as and when it became due.
Finally, the Court directed the officer to issue new orders in accordance with the Act’s provisions.
