Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated 14-09-2020, Vivek Singh Thakur, J.* opined that the right to become a mother was one of the most important human right and it must be protected at all costs. Therefore, provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) must be enforced strictly wherever applicable. The Court opined that the relationship of an employer and an employee required mutual trust between them, especially in an education institution, where congenial atmosphere for teaching and learning was required. Thus, the Court opined that in case the petitioners did not intended to accept the respondent’s joining, then in addition to the maternity benefits already granted, the petitioners should also pay compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent in lieu of her reinstatement because any intent to thwart the grant of maternity benefits should be dealt seriously in order to ensure implementation of the Act in letter and spirit.
Background
In an instant case, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the petitioners’ school, on contract basis from 01-04-2016 to 31-07-2017. Subsequently, she was appointed on probation from 01-07-2017, which was extended till 30-06-2019. Further, vide letter dated 20-12-2018, the respondent’s services were terminated from 21-12-2019, by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice and accordingly. termination letter was served upon her.
Further, on 12-04-2019, Respondent 1 delivered a baby, and preferred a complaint under Section 17 of the Act before the Labour Inspector, to set aside the termination order with consequential payment of Rs. 44, 896 and also, to pay maternity benefit to her from 01-03-2019 to 30-09-2019 under the Act and also, pay medical bonus as admissible under Section 8 of the Act.
Further, the petitioners stated that Respondent 1 had not applied for maternity leave, therefore there was no question of her termination on the ground of maternity leave and her termination was strictly in accordance with Service Rules for teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners. The petitioners stated that because her service record was not found to be satisfactory, one month’s salary in lieu of termination notice was given to her.
Thereafter, the authorised Labour Inspector vide order dated 16-09-2019, issued the direction to reinstate Respondent 1 and pay her maternity benefits. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority vide order dated 14-09-2020, concluded that the Management had failed to prove the alleged ground of termination and the termination was done to avoid maternity benefit to the complainant.
Thus, the petitioner had filed the present petition under Article
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000) 3 SCC 224, and opined that motherhood was an important and essential duty to be performed by a woman for existence of the human race on this earth. To concieve, to give brith and take care of a child was not only the fundamental right of the woman but also a pious role to be performed by her for existence of the society. The Court opined that keeping in view the arduous nature of this duty, she must be provided facilities to which she was entitled.
The Court stated that Article 42 of the Constitution directed that State should make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. The Court also stated that India was signatory to various international covenants and treaties including The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein it was declared that human rights were supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs. The Court opined that the right to become a mother was also one of the most important human right and it must be protected at all costs and thus, provisions of the Act must be enforced strictly wherever applicable.
The Court opined that the relationship of an employer and an employee required mutual trust between them especially in an education institution, where congenial atmosphere for teaching and learning was required. Thus, the Court opined that in case the petitioners did not intended to accept the respondent’s joining, then in addition to the maternity benefits already granted, the petitioners should also pay compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent in lieu of her reinstatement because any intent to thwart the grant of maternity benefits should be dealt seriously in order to ensure implementation of the Act in letter and spirit.
[Loreto Convent Tara Hall School v. Sharu Gupta, 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1727, decided on 28-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Het Ram Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Uma Manta, Advocate; Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General
*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
While respecting Hon’ble Court judgment to do pious duty of becoming pregnant without doing job or before joining duty is ok, once join duty she has to discharge official duties. Why women need to give paid maternity leave , to become pregnant or not is her personal choice, for her PC why should government/companies to pay her paid leave. European countries have very less population so they encourage women employees to give birth, whereas in india already no 1 in population. During her ML she enjoys paid leave, someone else are doing her job but they are not paid, isn’t a joke.Moreover women are given Paid Child Care Leave for two years. 6.5+6.5=13 months + 2yr CCL total 37 months are paid leave for women employees if her salary is 60KPM 37x60K=22 Lakhs/Women additionally paid than men employees. Don’t Employers have any right whether to give maternity leave or not? Working 80 days in a year and eligible for ML for months is not a joke?