RISING COMPLAINTS OF DENIAL OF MATERNITY BENEFITS

Background

Contribution of women in workforce of India is increasing day by day. Though they face many issues
during their employment. Denial of maternity benefits by their employers is one of the issues faced by
them in course of their employment. Despite the fact that, there is already a well prepared act by the
central government for the maternity benefits for the working women, the cases of denial of maternity
benefits by the employers are increasing. The Constitutional framework endeavors to provide equality to
women in all aspects. N.M Joshi was the first to recognize the idea of Maternity Benefit Bill in pre
independence era of India. The Maternity Benefits Act of 1961 was passed by the Union of India on
December 12, 1961, following the country’s independence. The Act was revised by the Indian
Government in 2017 to give women more inclusive maternity benefits.

Objective

 To overview the maternity benefits act, 1961.

 To analyze the issue of rising complaints of denial of maternity benefits.
 To analyze the reasons for the growth of denial of Maternity Benefits Cases in India, despite the
Maternity Benefit act, 1961.
 To give suggestions after analyzing the whole issue.

Problem

According to Periodic labour Force Survey, women contribute up to 30% in workforce of India. During
their pregnancy and after delivery they need to take care of themselves and her new born. But due to the
work load and working conditions of employers, they do not get time to manage both the things. Though
there is maternity benefit act, 1961, still there are rising cases of denial of maternity benefits to working
women. After observing few cases, we have found that most of the problems regarding this are faced by
women who are employed on contractual basis.

In the case of Dr. Baba saheb Ambedkar Hospital Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. V/S Dr. Krati
Malhotra (Delhi High Court), it is held that ad-hoc employs are entitled to maternity benefits beyond
the term of contract, if conception of pregnancy takes place during the period of contract of
employment.

In the case of B.S Rajeshwari V/S State of Karnataka and ors. (Karnataka High Court), The court
concluded that the Maternity Benefits Act does not venture forth, divide, and assign rights based on how
a worker has been classified. As permanent employees or based on an agreement, all female employees
are entitled to the benefits of maternity leave and other attached benefits.

Following are the few cases which have come to the notice National Commission for Women.
In the case of “Abhilasha vyas v/s Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University”, Abhilasha vyas
have been working at Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University on the post of consultant in the
oprations Department. When she was pregnant and in the 9Th month of pregnancy she mailed to the HR
Department for availing Maternity leaves/ benefits. The HR office emailed back to Abhilasha vyas and
wrote that they discontinued and terminated her services. So here it impliedly means that they are
denying her the right of getting maternity benefits based on the maternity benefit act, 1961.

In the similar case of “Shagoon Gupta v/s Union of India & anr.” The Complainant was offered an
Ad-hoc appointment as Young Professional for Category “C” in the Department of Telecommunications
with an initial appointment period of one year extendable up to three years. The Complainant in the due
course applied for Maternity leave as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. She never
got any reply from the said department. So here also they are impliedly denying her the maternity
benefits.

From the above cases, it can be culled out that despite the specific act; women face such problems of
denial of maternity benefit. There are many more such cases that are rising in India.

Any woman as an employee of the establishment that she is part of, can exercise her rights under the
Act, if she becomes eligible to do so. Section 4 and 5 explains the rights that women have as solely
being an employee of an organization. The Indian Constitution authorizes the government to provide
specific provisions for women under Article 15(3). Article 15 (3)’s principal goal is to prevent
discrimination based on women’s weak physical position. The reason for this is that, women’s physical
structure and performance of maternal functions placed her at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival.

In many of the cases, one of the reasons for the denial of the maternity benefits to women employees is
the contract of the employment. If contractual obligations are such that denies maternity benefits, then
establishments follow the contract that leads to denial of maternity benefits. At present, most of the
establishments hire employees on contractual basis. This turns out to be a disadvantage for the working
women during their maternity period.

When such kinds of obligations are not mentioned in the contract explicitly, even then the contractual
employees are denied maternity benefits because of limited years of employment. In the case of
“Abhilasha vyas v/s Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University”, the Complainant joined the
university as Consultant in the operations Department on 03/01/2022. According to the facts of the case
she signed the contract for twelve months. During her tenure, for first time she e-mailed on 27/12/2022
to HR Department informing about her pregnancy and her expected date of delivery was last week of
February 2023 she demanded 26 weeks of maternity benefits/leave. The University replied that the
complainant had not sent any mail for the extension of her employment tenure, which was about to end
on 03/01/2023.

In most of the Government establishments, they prefer their own guidelines over the act.
Rule 2 (h) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 states that, these rules shall apply to Government servants
appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union but shall not apply to
persons employed on contracts except when the contract provides otherwise. (Shagoon Gupta v/s
Union of India & anr.)

Also in NITI Aayog Guidelines point 3 describes Termination; The NITI Aayog can terminate the
contract at any time without prior notice and without providing any reason for it. However in the normal
course it will provide one month notice to the individual consultant. The individual consultant can also
seek for termination of the contract upon giving one months’ notice to the NITI Aayog. (Abhilasha
vyas v/s Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University).

 What are the reasons for the rise of denial of Maternity Benefits to women despite the
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?
 What all could be done to tackle this above mentioned issue?

Research Methodology

Research Timeline