Working woman’s statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be just taken away: SC

India

pti-PTI

New
Delhi,
Aug
16:
The
Supreme
Court
on
Tuesday
held
that
a
working
woman
cannot
be
denied
her
statutory
right
to
maternity
leave
for
her
biological
child
only
because
her
husband
has
two
children
from
previous
marriage
and
she
had
availed
the
leave
to
take
care
of
one
of
them.

The
top
court
said
that
the
grant
of
maternity
leave
is
intended
to
encourage
women
to
join
and
continue
in
the
workplace
but
it
is
a
matter
of
harsh
reality
that
despite
such
provisions,
women
are
compelled
to
leave
their
place
of
work
on
the
birth
of
a
child
since
they
are
not
granted
leave
and
other
facilitative
measures.

According
to
rules,
a
female
employee
with
less
than
two
surviving
children
can
seek
maternity
leave.

A
bench
of
justices
DY
Chandrachud
and
AS
Bopanna
said
that
childbirth
has
to
be
construed
in
the
context
of
employment
as
a
natural
aspect
of
the
life
of
the
working
women
and
the
provisions
under
the
law
must
be
construed
in
that
perspective.

Not
our
job
to
declare
Hindus
as
minority:
Supreme
Court

The
court
said
the
rules
on
maternity
benefits
are
formulated
in
terms
of
the
provisions
of
Article
15
of
the
Constitution
under
which
the
State
can
adopt
a
provision
for
the
protection
of
the
interest
of
the
women.

Unless
a
purposive
interpretation
is
adopted,
the
object
and
intent
of
grant
of
maternity
leave
would
be
completely
defeated,
it
said.

The
top
court
was
hearing
a
plea
of
the
woman,
working
as
a
nurse
at
the
Postgraduate
Institute
of
Medical
Education
and
Research
(PGIMER),
Chandigarh,
who
was
denied
maternity
leave
for
her
only
biological
child
on
the
ground
that
she
had
two
children
from
her
husband’s
previous
marriage
and
had
earlier
availed
the
leave
to
take
care
of
one
of
them
after
the
death
of
his
first
wife.

”It
is
a
matter
of
harsh
reality
that
despite
such
provisions
women
are
compelled
to
leave
their
place
of
work
on
the
birth
of
a
child,
since
they
are
not
granted
leave
and
other
facilitative
measures…
”Childbirth
has
to
be
construed
in
the
context
of
employment
as
a
natural
aspect
of
the
life
of
the
working
women.
Hence,
the
provision
which
has
been
made
should
be
construed
in
that
perspective,” the
bench
said.

The
top
court
bench,
which
sat
till
6.40
pm
to
decide
the
case
among
other
matters,
said
that
the
provisions
of
the
central
civil
service
rules
regarding
maternal
leaves
need
to
be
purposefully
interpreted
in
line
with
the
intent
of
the
Maternity
Benefit
Act
enacted
by
the
Parliament.

”The
provisions
of
rule
43
(1)
must
be
imparted
to
a
purposive
construction.
For
the
purpose
of
interpreting
Rule
43,
it
should
be
appropriate
to
look
into
the
Maternity
Benefit
Act…”,
it
said,
adding
that
nonetheless,
the
provisions
of
the
Maternity
Benefit
Act,
1961,
are
indicative
of
the
objects
and
intent
of
Parliament
in
enacting
cognitive
legislation
on
the
subject.

Referring
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
the
bench
said
that
these
provisions
have
been
made
by
Parliament
to
ensure
that
absence
of
a
woman
from
her
place
of
work
for
the
delivery
of
a
child
does
not
hinder
her
entitlement
to
receive
wages
for
that
period
or
for
that
matter
the
period
for
which
she
should
be
granted
leave
to
look
after
the
child
after
giving
the
birth.

”Rule
43
(1)
of
the
CCS
Rules
contemplate
the
grant
of
maternity
leave
for
a
period
of
180
days,
independent
of
the
grant
of
maternity
leave,
a
woman
is
also
entitled
to
the
grant
of
child
care
leave
for
taking
care
of
two
eldest
surviving
children,
whether
for
rearing
or
for
looking
after
their
need
such
as
education,
sickness
and
alike,”
it
said.

The
top
court
said
that
the
child
care
leave
can
be
availed
of
not
only
at
the
point
when
the
child
is
born
but
at
any
subsequent
period
as
is
evident
from
the
illustrative
part
of
the
rules.
The
bench
said
that
the
facts
of
the
present
case
indicate
that
the
spouse
of
the
appellant
has
prior
marriage
which
has
ended
with
the
death
of
his
wife
after
which
the
appellant
was
married
to
him.

The
bench
said
that
”the
fact
that
he
(her
spouse)
had
two-biological
children
from
a
prior
marriage
would
not
impinge
upon
the
statutory
entitlement
of
the
appellant
for
grant
of
maternity
leave
for
her
sole
biological
child
in
the
present
case”.

It
said
the
fact
that
she
was
granted
child
care
leave
for
one
of
the
two
children
born
to
her
spouse
from
earlier
marriage
may
be
a
matter
where
a
compassionate
view
was
taken
by
authorities
at
the
relevant
time.

However,
this
cannot
be
used
to
disentitle
her
from
the
entitlement
of
leave
under
Rule
43
of
Central
Civil
Services
leave
rules,
1972.

”Unless
such
a
purposive
interpretation
is
adopted,
the
object
and
intent
of
grant
of
maternity
leave
would
be
completely
defeated”,
the
bench
said,
adding
that
these
rules
are
formulated
in
terms
of
the
provisions
of
Article
15
of
the
Constitution,
under
which
the
State
can
adopt
a
provision
for
the
protection
of
the
interest
of
the
women.

The
top
court
set
aside
the
High
Court
refusing
to
accept
her
plea
for
grant
of
maternity
leave
to
take
care
of
her
biological
child
and
the
order
of
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
and
allowed
her
plea.

”For
the
above
reason,
we
hold
that
the
appellant
was
entitled
for
the
grant
of
maternity
leave
and
the
communication
of
the
third
respondent
(hospital
authorities)
denying
her
maternity
leave
was
contrary
to
the
provision
of
rule
43.
”We
accordingly
set
aside
the
impugned
judgement
of
the
high
court
and
the
judgement
of
the
CAT.
The
OA
of
appellant
shall
stand
allowed.
The
appellant
shall
be
granted
maternity
leave
as
otherwise
was
admissible
under
rule
43
of
CCS
leave
rules,
1972”,
the
bench
said.

It
directed
that
whatever
benefit
which
was
her
entitlement
should
be
paid
within
two
months
of
the
order.