Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging the denial of maternity benefits by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on the grounds of employment contract, a single-judge bench comprising of Raja Basu Chowdhury,* J., held that denial of maternity benefits constitutes discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondents to provide compensation in the form of maternity leave with pay for the period it was denied.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, employed as an Executive Intern at the RBI on a contractual basis for three years starting from 16-08-2011, applied for maternity leave for 180 days on 20-11-2012, effective from 03-12-2012, due to medical advice for bed rest during pregnancy. The petitioner’s application for maternity leave was initially not responded to, but eventually, on 14-03-2013, the respondent informed her in writing that she was not entitled to maternity leave under the terms of her contract, instead, her absence from duty would be considered as leave without compensation, although she would still receive medical benefits available to junior officers. Upon the rejection of her application, the petitioner sent a letter demanding justice, but the respondent reiterated that maternity leave was not covered in her contract terms. Aggrieved by the denial of maternity benefits, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Court challenging the same.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to maternity leave despite the terms of her contract?
-
Whether the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 applies to the Reserve Bank of India?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (the Act), being a central legislation, supersedes any contractual terms. It was contended that the judicial precedents and legislative intent emphasises on the importance of providing maternity benefits to female employees. It was argued that the respondent’s denial of maternity leave amounts to discrimination, which is prohibited under the Act and the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the contract does not explicitly restrict the petitioner’s entitlement to maternity benefits. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the contract explicitly mentions medical benefits but does not include maternity benefits and the petitioner accepted these terms by acknowledging the contract. It was contended that the Reserve Bank of India Act outlines the bank’s functions, which do not extend to providing maternity benefits. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition and contended that the petitioner did not exhaust alternative remedies available under the Act before approaching the Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analysed the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, and concluded that the Act applies to establishments employing ten or more persons, including commercial establishments like the Reserve Bank of India. The Court noted the purpose of the Act is to ensure the well-being of pregnant women in the workplace and prevent discrimination. The Court referred to Kavita Yadav v. Secy., Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department, (2024) 1 SCC 421, where the Supreme Court stated that entitlement to maternity benefit under the Act “travels beyond the term of employment and is not co-terminus with the employment tenure” and Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088, where the Supreme Court while applying purposive interpretation note that “the contractual terms do not limit the right of the petitioner to be entitled to the benefits of the said Act. There is nothing in the terms of employment which interfered with the rights of the petitioner to be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the said Act.”
While noting that the RBI ordinarily provides maternity benefits to its employees as per its Master Circular, the Court reasoned that differentiation between regular and contractual employees regarding maternity benefits creates an impermissible class within a class which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the denial of maternity benefits to the petitioner constitutes discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court asserted that denying maternity leave to the petitioner undermines a woman’s right to childbirth and maternity leave, as enshrined in the law and violates the provisions of the relevant Act, which mandates maternity benefits for every woman employee. The Court emphasised the importance of maternity benefits, highlighting that denying such benefits could force pregnant employees to work during advanced stages of pregnancy, endangering both the mother and the fetus.
“A healthy mother and a healthy new born child not only ensures to the growth and development of the child but to the nation as well, as the child of today would be the force behind tomorrow’s development. Depriving such benefits to the mother and the foetus/child would tantamount to depriving the nation of its future.”
The Court held that denying maternity benefits to the petitioner constituted discrimination and violated her legal rights. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument regarding exhaustion of alternative remedies and stated that availability of “alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for grant of relief by exercising powers of extraordinary writ jurisdiction”, therefore, the petitioner is not barred from seeking relief through a writ petition.
Court’s Decision
While emphasising on the importance of upholding maternity benefits to ensure the well-being of both mothers and newborns, as well as the nation’s future development, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and directed the respondents to provide compensation in the form of maternity leave with pay for the period it was denied.
[Neeta Kumari v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1881, order dated 26-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Malini Chakraborty and Ms. Shampa De, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Alok Kumar Banerjee and Mr. Arunabha Sarkar, Counsel for the Respondent 3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
