Advocates Empanelled By Legal Services Authority Are Not 'Employees'; Not Entitled To 'Maternity Benefits': Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that Advocates empanelled with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLA) cannot be considered ‘employees’ and are consequently not eligible for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by the DSLA against the impugned Judgment dated July 26, 2023, passed by the Single Judge, whereby it held that an Advocate empanelled with the DSLSA is entitled to maternity benefits as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It had also said that a woman who chooses both career and motherhood should not be forced to make an ‘either-or’ decision.

A Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside an earlier Order of a Single Judge, which directed the DSLSA to provide medical, financial, and other benefits to its empaneled legal aid Counsel, Annwesha Deb.

"We hold that the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the benefits of the Act of 1961 to the respondent, more particularly, given the nature of her appointment. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. No costs," the Court ordered.

The Bench held that Deb’s engagement with the DSLSA was in a professional capacity and not as a regular employee. The Court emphasized thatAadvocates empanelled with the authority operate on a day-to-day basis and do not have fixed terms of engagement, unlike regular employees.

“According to her (Counsel for Respondent), if the Advocate does not attend the Court on a given day, he/she is not paid the fees on that day. It follows that the engagement of the respondent, as any other LSA, is not regular having any fixed terms. It is thus that the leaves as available to an employee are not available to a LSA. As a necessary corollary, the engagement of LSA on a day-to-day basis is as a professional," the Bench noted.

The Division Bench further stated that allowing empanelled advocates to claim maternity benefits would have serious repercussions and would be an erroneous interpretation of the Maternity Benefit Act.

"..conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the appointment letter of the respondent also show that the respondent was working for a number of fixed hours as per the time schedule of Juvenile Justice Boards and she was required to report to the observation homes after working hours of the Court, to hold that the relationship of the Authority and the respondent is of employer-employee, is clearly misplaced," the Bench said.

The Court added, "It is an obligation on the LSA to carry out the mandate under the Regulations prescribing the duties of a LSA. The same cannot and indeed shall not make the nature of appointment, as "employer-employee‟."

The Court highlighted that Deb, by accepting the terms and conditions outlined in the notice inviting applications for empanellment, had voluntarily agreed to be governed by those conditions, which did not include maternity benefits. "Therefore, once having willingly chosen to accept them, she is bound to be governed by them (terms and conditions). Once having done so without any coercion or force whatsoever, the respondent is estopped from asking for maternity benefits under the Act of 1961, more specifically, as they were not available to her at any point of time before," the Court said.

The Bench said that the interpretation of the words 'Employment‘ and 'Wages‘ in the Act of 1961, by the Single Judge, if allowed to stand, would mean that an entity engaging professionals like an Advocate, shall be bound to give the maternity benefits to each of those who are engaged professionally. "This interpretation by the Learned Single Judge is completely misplaced in law and would have serious repercussions," it said.

Consequently, the Court concluded that Deb is estopped from seeking maternity benefits under the Act, as they were not part of the terms agreed upon during her empanellment.

The Court held, "We are not in agreement with the parity sought to be drawn by the Learned Single Judge between Authority and the respondent, for the reason that there cannot be a comparison between an Advocate who continues to act as such and an employee who is appointed as per the Recruitment Rules of the Authority."

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the impugned Judgment was set aside.

Cause Title: Delhi State Legal Services Authority v. Annwesha Deb [Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC: 3146-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Rayadurgam Bharat, Adhishwar Suri, Piyo Harold Saimon, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Shashwat Kabi

Respondent: Advocates Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Hemant Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download the Judgment