Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANAGEMENT
Maternity
Benefit Act
1961
Presented To:- Presented By:-
1. The Maternity Benefit Act is one of the best steps taken by the government to
protect women employment while they experience their Maternity.
2. Maternity Benefit is basically the benefit of getting full paid absence from
work.
3. This benefit is given to the woman with the motive to help her in taking care
of her child.
4. It extends to whole of India (including Jammu and Kashmir from 1970).
5. It has a total of 30 sections.
Applicability of the Act:
It applies , to every establishment being a factory,
mine or plantation as well as in the circus
industry.
Note:-
Woman
Child Delivery
A woman employed, whether
directly or through any Includes a still-born Means the birth of a
agency, for wages in any child. child.
establishment.
Appropriate
Employer
Government Wages
Means
The Central Government and in Means
relation to any other establishment,
the State Government;
Employment of, or work by, women
prohibited during certain period
No employer shall knowingly employ a woman in any
establishment during the six weeks immediately following
the day of her delivery or her miscarriage.
CONDITION 2
DEATH OF CHILD
The max period of maternity
benefit shall be 12 weeks of which if the child dies.
more than 6 weeks shall proceed if both of them dies.
the date of her expected delivery.
Notice of Claim for Maternity Benefit
Any woman entitled to maternity benefit may give
notice to her employer :
In case such woman who is pregnant such notice shall
state:
A woman may give such notice as soon as possible after
the devlivery also.
The amout of maternity benefit:
1. For the period preceding the date of her delivery:
2. For subsequent period :
Dismissal During the Absence:
The ECHS clinic refused her request on the basis that her contract of
employment with the clinic did not have any clause under which she could
claim “maternity leave”.
Judgment
The Court noted that as per Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the
benefits apply to every establishment in which ten or more persons are
employed, among others.
The Court further noted that the ECHS clinic in question was squarely covered
under Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and thus the petitioner’s
application for availing benefits under the Act could not be refused.
The court also, while deciding the question of whether the petitioner despite
being a contractual employee could still avail of the benefits under the act,
quoted Municipal Corporation of Delhi v/s Female Workers and another[1], of the
Supreme Court which has explicitly mandated for the entitlement of maternity
leave to be made available to women employees whether permanent, casual or
contractual.
Highlight of Judgment
The Court, whilst discussing the nature of benefits available to women under the
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 also set out the amended Section 5 of the Act, which
extended the time period of maternity leave available to a woman from 12 weeks to 26
weeks, and also provided a “work from home” option that could be exercised after the
expiry of the 26 week leave period, with mutual consultation with the employed.
Since the Petition was filed after the amendment of Section 5, the Court directed the
state to grant maternity leave to the Petitioner as per the amended law.
Tanuja Tolia v. State of Uttarakhand
24/07/2020
This a full bench judgment, that will now likely be treated as precedent in every court of the country. A
petition was filed by a female Aurvedic doctor, who was employed in the State Medical and Health
Services (SMHS) Uttarakhand on a contractual basis. Though her contract of employment was for one
year initially, it had been consistently renewed.
She applied for maternity leave, and was accordingly granted the same. After her maternity leave
expired, she chose to not rejoin and applied for Child Care Leave (CCL), which was denied stating that
she was a contractual employee, and therefore was not entitled to CCLs.
Sequence of Events
The application for CCL was made pursuant to a what is knows as Government Order
(GO), which clearly stated that a CCL of 730 days was provided for only permanent
employees and not contractual employees, and formed the basis of the employer’s
refusal to grant her CCL.
The doctor then approached the High Court by way of writ, which writ was also
decided against her.
The matter was then listed under a division bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand,
where the state argued that a contractual employees’ term of employment is only a
year, and under the circumstances, it was practically impossible to grant a CCL of 730
days. If the state was to do so, then it would mean that the state would compulsorily
have to keep renewing the contract.
The Court found favor with the State’s argument and found that there were conflicting
views of different courts, and thus referred the matter to a larger bench.
Judgment
The Court, whilst deciding the question of law, examined the history of maternity and child
care leave. It was observed that the rights of women and children are interdependent.
Many a times when a woman seeks enforcement of her rights ( such as maternity leave and
child care leave), it is really the right of a child which is being sought to be enforced. This is
also echoed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which categorically lays down
“Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, born in
or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection”.
This was taken further by the Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) which calls upon all nations to take appropriate measures to introduce
maternity leave with pay for all women. India is a party to both the aforesaid conventions and
as such, must inculcate these covenants into domestic law. Protection of women and
children, also finds place in the directive principles of state policy of our Constitution.
The GO which only applied to permanent employees and excluded
contractual employees, was analyzed. The Court observed, that
CCL’s real beneficiary was the child, and the mother or the father
taking the CCL were only an instrument for enforcement of the
child’s rights, and no discrimination ought to be accorded between
who is entitled to CCL, as the ultimate beneficiary remains the
same.
The Court has now held that that an employee whose entire
employment is for one year, and if he/she fulfils other parameters
referred to in the GO, i.e. if he/she has two children of less than 18
years of age, he/she will be entitled to CCL amounting to a paid
leave of 31 days.
ank You
Th