The Bombay High Court granted relief to a woman employee of Airports Authority of India whose application for maternity leave benefit was rejected on the ground she is having more than two surviving children and thus ineligible to avail the benefit as per AAI Leave Regulations 2003.

The Court said that the object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period.

The Division Bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain said, "The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period and, therefore, it is in that context that the condition of two surviving children is imposed. We have already opined above as to how this condition is not applicable to the fact situation before us."

"To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth," the Court observed.

The Court also stated that the respect and protection of woman and of maternity should be raised to the position of an inalienable social duty and should become one of the principles of human morality.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the AAI Workers Union and a female employee challenging the denial of maternity leave benefits by the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The Petitioner, a female employee, was denied maternity leave benefits for her third childbirth under the Airport Authority of India (Leave) Regulations 2003, which cited the condition of having more than two surviving children as grounds for ineligibility.

The Court noted that the Maternity Leave Regulation, 2003, of AAI provides that a female employee with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave of 135 days/180 days twice during her service period. It further noted, "To avail the said leave, the employee should have completed at least one-year regular service in AAI."

The Bench highlighted that the objective of the said Regulation is to enable the employee to nurse her child and to make up for her dissipated energy and preserve her energy as a worker to regain the level of her efficiency as it was prior to her pregnancy. It opined, "Since the objective is to give the maternity leave benefit only two times during the service period, the condition of “two surviving children,” if read in that context would mean that the female employee should have given birth to the two surviving children only during the service period."

Emphasizing that the objective of this Regulation is to give maternity leave benefits and not to curb the population, the Court noted, "The condition of two surviving children is subjected so that the maximum times a female employee can benefit is only twice. This is to ensure that the organization is not without the services of the employee for more than two times. It is, therefore, to maintain the balance between the absence of the employee and the benefit of maternity leave that there is a cap of availing the said benefit only twice during the service period."

In the present case, the Petitioner's first child, from her previous marriage, was born before she joined AAI. However, after joining AAI, she remarried and gave birth to two more children, one in June 2009 and the other in September 2012. Pertinently, the Petitioner did not avail herself of maternity leave benefits for the birth of her first child in June 2009. It was only after the birth of her second child in September 2012 that she applied for maternity leave benefits. Subsequently, she submitted another application in December 2013, following the birth of her second child.

Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation in B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, the Court highlighted the underlying purpose of maternity leave legislation: to ensure social justice to women workers by enabling them to recuperate from childbirth, nurture their child, and maintain their efficiency as workers.

The Division Bench said, "Since the Petitioner has given birth to two children during the service period and having not taken the benefit of maternity leave at the time of giving birth to the first child after joining Respondent No. 2 (AAI), she would be entitled to the maternity leave benefit when she applied on 3rd September 2012, at the time of giving birth to her second child since said leave was sought to be availed only once after joining service."

Calling it an "exceptional circumstance", the Court said, "Keeping in mind the laudable objective of the maternity leave provision, the Respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of the maternity leave to the Petitioner No. 2 (AAI) only on the ground that if the child born from her first wedlock which is before the date of her joining Respondent No.2 is considered, then she is not entitled for the benefit on account of breaching the condition of having more than two surviving children."

"When social reality changes, the law must change too. The Regulation with which we are concerned being beneficial Regulation, same should be interpreted liberally keeping in mind the objective and purpose for which same is engrafted," the Bench remarked.

While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court ordered, "In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 28th January 2014 and 31st March 2014 issued by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside and the Respondents are directed to grant maternity benefits to the Petitioner in respect of the delivery of her child on 3rd September 2012 within a period of eight weeks from today."

Cause Title: Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr. v. The Under Secretary and Anr.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Ms. Pavitra Mahesh, i/b. Mr. Meelan Topkar

Respondent: Mr. Ahmed Padela, i/b. The Law Point

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice AS ChandurkarJustice Jitendra JainBombay High CourtMaternity Benefit ActMaternity Leave

Sukriti Mishra