No Differentiation Is Permissible Between Regular & Contractual Women Employees On Question Of Right To Maternity Leave: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court observed that on the question of a woman’s right to child birth and maternity leave, no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees.
The Court observed thus in a writ petition filed by a woman, questioning the failure on part of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to allow maternity leave with pay to her for 180 days.
A Single Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury said, “On the question of a woman’s right to child birth and maternity leave no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees of the respondent no.2. Denial of grant of maternity leave to the petitioner constitutes a discriminatory act and is an offence within the meaning of the said Act. As per 5(1) of the said Act, every woman would be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefits.”
Advocate Malini Chakraborty represented the petitioner while Advocate Alok Kumar Banerjee represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Intern at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on a contractual basis for a period of three years. In course of her employment with the bank, she having conceived had applied for maternity leave vide a letter for six months as she was advised bed rest by the doctor. Although, there was no contemporaneous communication rejecting her application for maternity leave, however, subsequently by a letter, she was informed that she was not entitled to maternity leave as per the terms of the contract and that her absence from duty be treated as leave without compensation.
It was also informed that she would be entitled to medical benefits as available to the junior most officers in the bank. By reasons of rejection of her application for grant of maternity leave, she demanded justice through her advocate’s letter. Being aggrieved by the failure on the part of the bank to extend the maternity benefits to her, she, therefore, filed a writ petition before the court.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides noted, “Independent of the above it may also be noted that the respondent no.2 is ordinarily providing maternity benefits to its employees as per its Master Circular. Having regard to the aforesaid, non-extension of such benefits to the petitioner, in my view, constitutes discriminatory act as the same seeks to create a class within a class which is not permissible and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court said that if the bank is permitted to deny the petitioner the basic right of the maternity benefit and only leave is extended without compensation, the same would tantamount to compel an employee to work during her advanced pregnancy, notwithstanding the same may ultimately endanger both her and her foetus and if the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.
“… the same would be detrimental to the future of our country, 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”, it further noted.
The Court also observed that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for grant of relief by exercising powers of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the bank to afford compensation in form of leave with pay to the petitioner for the period for which the same was denied.
Cause Title- Neeta Kumari v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Malini Chakraborty and Shampa De.
Respondents: Advocates Alok Kumar Banerjee and Arunabha Sarkar.
