Case Summary:

The case of the petitioner-Management is briefly stated hereunder. The petitioner is a tea
plantation estate covered under the Maternity Benefit Act. The second respondent is
employed in the services of the petitioner. On May 28, 1988 she had an abortion in the Estate
Hospital and after availing 6 weeks leave, she reported for duty. Her claim for leave wages at
the rate of maternity benefit for the post miscarriage period of 6 weeks and leave with wages
for one month under Section 10 of the said Act was not entertained on the ground that in the
period of 12 months preceding her miscarriage viz., May 28, 1988, she has worked only for
156 days and therefore she was not entitled to payment of maternity benefit.

The provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act clearly show that in order to claim benefit either
under Section 5 or under Section 9 or under Section 10, the pregnant woman should have
worked for not less than 160 days in the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the
date of her expected delivery. It is also stated that maternity benefit and leave for
miscarriage have been treated on the same footing and the Act does not envisage grant of
leave with wages for miscarriage without reference to the qualifying period of service.
Based on this reasoning, the claim of the 2nd respondent for post natal leave with wages
for 6 weeks and leave for illness arising out of miscarriage was not countenanced.

The claim of the 2nd respondent for maternity benefit was taken up as a complaint by the
Inspector of Plantations, Valparai. By his order dated May 31, 1989, the Inspector of
Plantations, Valparai held that the qualifying period of 160 days actual work is not a
prerequisite for grant of leave with wages for miscarriage under Section 9 of the Act,
accordingly he directed the petitioner to pay the 2nd respondent maternity benefit of Rs.
981.54 for the period from May 28, 1988 to July 8, 1988. Against the said order of Inspector
of Plantations Valparai, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent
under Section 17(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act. By order dated November 9, 1989, the
first respondent dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Inspector of
Plantations. Against the order of the first respondent dated November 9, 1989 in Maternity
Appeal No. 1 of 1989, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Challenges

1. Tea plantation manager has filed a case against the lady.

2. Unnecessary trouble to the troubled person.
3. Inhumane behaviour towards the sufferer.
4. Violation of right of payment act.
5. Miscarriage is an unexpected and unfortunate event in individual woman's life.
6. Violation of major rules of maternity benefit act 1961.

Recommendations-
1. As these legal proceedings are time consuming, these cases needs to be prioritized and
dealt first in the civil courts.
2. Here the business ethics come into pictures as these issues should hardly been dragged to
the court, as she has worked for 156 days rather than 160 days, so on human grounds, the
management should cut a slack for the petty issues like this.
3. Some extra benefits should be provided to the sufferer for this never ending hustle after
miscarriage.
4. Women should be aware of her rights in order to overcome the issues like this.
5. While joining any organisation public/private they should do a background check of the
kind of leniency they have to the employees in serious issues. In public sector, women
usually get their compensations, private sector women are still struggling at workplace
regarding these issues.

Judgements:
1. It is not disputed that her claim was supported by a certificate issued by the
concerned authority. Relying on Section 9 of the Act, the learned counsel, for the
petitioner, particularly with reference to the expression "at the rate of maternity
benefit", has contended that claim under Section 9 is to be treated like claim
under Section 5.
2.  It is true that in order to claim the payment of maternity benefit under Section 5 the
concerned woman has to satisfy that she had actually worked in the establishment
 of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less
than 160 days in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected
delivery.
3.  Considering the intention of the Legislature and the condition prescribed in Section
5 of the Act and in the absence of similar condition in Section 9, I am of the view that
in the case of miscarriage of a woman worker, she can claim the benefit
under Section 9 even if she has not worked for 160 days in the period of 12 months
preceding date of miscarriage.
4. In entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent and I hold
that there is no need for the woman worker to put in 160 days of service prior to the
date of miscarriage. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed
with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000. Petitioner-management is directed to pay the
amount of Rs. 981.54 to the second respondent-worker within a period of two
weeks from today.

Concepts-
Maternity benefit act 1961- it has various parts in which it discusses rights and benefits of
the women undergoing in it.
For example it talks about,
1. right of payment maternity benefit
2.payment or maternity benefits of a women in case of death
3. Leave for miscarriages.
4. Nursing break