In the interplay between work and motherhood, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 ("Act") remains a transformative force, redefining the narrative for working women. This legislation, a vital stride towards aligning societal expectations with the realities faced by women during maternity, introduced paid maternity leave and essential benefits during the period of pre- and post-natal care.
In this article, we delve on an interesting question as to whether a woman employee would be entitled to maternity benefits under the Act, if the period for which she claims such benefits goes beyond the term of her contractual employment.
The restrictive view-
In Dr. Kavitha Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (decided on 19th August 2019), the Delhi High Court dealt with the above question in relation to a woman employee whose contract came to an end before the expiry of her maternity benefits period.
The court relying on section 5(1) of the Act observed that an eligible woman is entitled to the payment of maternity benefit "for the period of her actual absence" and emphasised that the expression "actual absence" in the said section pre-supposes that but for the maternity leave, the women employee would be expected to remain "present". In other words, according to the High Court the entitlement to maternity benefit arises only when it is certain that the women employee would otherwise have been present at work.
On the basis of the above reasoning, the High Court further observed that where the contractual employment comes to an end during the period when the women employee would be entitled to avail of maternity benefits under the Act, then the above criteria of 'being present at work but for the maternity leave' would not arise. Accordingly, the High Court ruled that the term of maternity benefit cannot exceed the fixed term of employment. The Court further observed that granting of maternity benefit beyond the term of employment would tantamount to the extension of the term of employment which is not intended.
A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Artiben R Takkar v. Delhi Pharmaceuticals Science & Research University & Anr. (decided on 27th September 2019) where the High Court observed that "a contractual job comes to an end with efflux of time and the person holding the post has no right to continue on the post and enjoy its benefits."
Respectfully, the above restrictive interpretation helped little in achieving the goals envisioned by a social security legislation.
Winds of change-
The change in judicial view came in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Krati Mehrotra (decided on 11th March 2022), where the division bench of the Delhi High Court while allowing a woman employee the right to receive maternity benefit beyond the term of her contract observed that "... linking the tenure of employment, in this case, a contractual employee, with the period for which maternity benefits can be availed by a woman employee, is not an aspect that emerges on a plain reading of the provisions of the 1961 Act". However, the High Court did create a distinction between fixed-term contracts and open-ended contracts, i.e., where the contract between the employer and employee was extended from time to time and extended the benefit only to the latter.
The long-standing question was finally settled when a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Kavitha Yadav case (in Civil Appeal No. 5010 of 2023 decided on 17th August 2023) and laid down that the maternity benefit can be extended beyond the contractual period of employment.
The Supreme Court refused to accept the view of the Delhi High Court and by relying on section 12(2)(a) of the Act observed that "... continuation of maternity benefits is in-built in the statute itself, where the benefits would survive and continue despite the cessation of employment." The court further stressed on the restriction on an employer from dismissing or discharging a woman who absents herself from work due to maternity and held that the expression "discharge" in the said section 12(2)(a) is of wide import, and it would include "discharge on conclusion of the contractual period". In conclusion, the Court held that that once a woman employee fulfils the eligibility criteria specified in section 5(2) of the Act (i.e. completion of 80 days of employment in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery), she would be entitled to full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract.
The progressive application of the aforementioned judgement is also reflected in Rehmat Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) (decided on 6th October 2023) where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court following the above judgment, awarded maternity benefits to a woman employee beyond the fixed term of her contract.
Conclusion
The decision of the Supreme Court has provided much needed guidance to courts and organisations alike, to actively engage in advancing social security safeguards for women during maternity. The progressive interpretation and enforcement of the Act would extend a huge support to a lot of women working as contractual employees.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
