The Supreme Court of India in Dr. Kavita Yadav v The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.[1] ruled in favor of a contractual employee who was denied maternity benefits extending beyond her contract period. The Court determined that the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, should continue even after the termination of her employment contract.
The appellant was employed on a contract basis from June 12, 2016, to June 11, 2017. She applied for maternity benefits on May 24, 2017, seeking leave starting from June 1, 2017. The employer granted only 11 days of maternity leave, citing the end of her contract on June 11, 2017. The appellant's claim for 26 weeks of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, of 1961, was rejected by both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.
The reasoning adopted by the High Court while rejecting maternity benefit to the appellant in its judgment delivered on 19th August 2019 was based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, of 1961 deals with the right to payment of maternity benefits. As per the provisions of this section, every woman shall be entitled to, the payment of maternity benefits at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for the six weeks immediately following that day and the employer is mandated to ensure the compliance of this provision.
Explanation embedded in the section states that the average daily wage should mean the average of the woman’s wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity, or one rupee a day, whichever is higher.
Subclause (2) further states that no woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than one hundred and sixty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery: however, the qualifying period of one hundred and sixty days shall not apply to a woman who has immigrated into the State of Assam and was pregnant at the time of the immigration.
For the purpose of calculating the days on which a woman has actually worked in the establishment, the days for which she has been laid off during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account. The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twelve weeks, ti.e., six weeks up to and including the day of her delivery and six weeks immediately following that day.
In case the woman dies during this period, the maternity benefit shall be payable only for the days up to and including the day of her death, and in case where a woman after the delivery dies, during her delivery, or during the period of six weeks immediately following the date of her delivery, the employer shall be liable for the maternity benefit for the entire period of six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery but if the child also dies during the said period, then for the days up to and including the day of the death of the child.
As per the High Court, the petitioner's reliance on Section 5(2) of the relevant Act to claim maternity benefits after her contract ended on 11.6.2017 is irrelevant. Regarding the issue of whether she was entitled to the benefit after her employment contract expired, the court noted that Section 5(1) of the Act provides for maternity benefit for the "period of her actual absence", which presupposes that for the maternity leave, the woman employee would remain present at work.
However, where the employment contract is time-bound and ends during the pregnancy or after childbirth, there is no question of her remaining "actually absent" because she would not be expected to remain present after the contract termination. As per the court, the purpose of the Act is not to extend the period of an employee's contract, and granting 180 days maternity leave despite the contract expiring a few days after leave began would be tantamount to an unintended extension of the contractual employment period.
This judgment was appealed before the Supreme Court. The issue before the Apex Court was whether a contractual employee is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, of 1961, beyond the period of her contractual employment.
The appellant argued that under Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, she was entitled to maternity benefits for a period of 26 weeks, as she had served more than 180 days continuously before the expected delivery date. On the other hand, the respondent-employer contended that maternity benefits should not extend beyond the contractual period of employment. They argued that the contractual term could not be notionally extended to grant full maternity benefits.
After considering the rival submission of the parties, the Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the employer to provide full maternity benefits.
The court interpreted the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and emphasized that the Act aims to protect the dignity of motherhood by ensuring a woman's employment is not terminated due to pregnancy. Further, Section 5(2) clearly grants maternity benefits to women who have worked for 180 days prior to the expected date of delivery, irrespective of the term of the contract. Further Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 specifies eligibility criteria for maternity benefits. Court reproduced the provisions of Section 12(2)(a) of the 1961 Act[2] wherein continuation of maternity benefits which is inbuilt in the statute itself is made clear.
Section 12(2)(a) deals with dismissal during absence or pregnancy. It protects women from wrongful deductions made in her salary by the actions of her employer. As per this section, in the case where a woman is absent from work in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act, her employer cannot discharge or dismiss her or give notice of discharge or dismissal and if he does so, the same would be considered unlawful. This section protects women by holding actions of the employer unlawful which are taken at her disadvantage just because she was absent as per the provisions of the 1961 Act.
As a consequence of this, if the woman is discharged or dismissed at any time during her pregnancy, she would be entitled to maternity benefits or a medical bonus. She can be deprived of maternity benefits, medical bonus or both if the dismissal is for any prescribed gross misconduct communicated to the woman in writing. Any woman deprived of maternity benefit or medical bonus or both can appeal to an appropriate authority within sixty days from the date on which the order of such deprivation is communicated to her and the decision of the authority will be final.
Based on this section, the court concluded that Section 12(2)(a) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Protects women from dismissal or discharge during pregnancy, hence the benefits would survive and continue despite the cessation of employment.
The court opined that Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Provides overriding effect to the Act over any inconsistent agreement or contract. For this reason, the High Court erred in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to maternity benefits beyond 11th June 2017.
After placing reliance on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr.[3], the Court held that maternity benefits are not co-terminus with the term of employment and can extend beyond the contractual period.
Consequently, the court noted that a combined reading of these provisions in the factual context of this case would lead to the conclusion that once the appellant fulfilled the entitlement criteria specified in Section 5(2) of the Act(180 days of service), she became eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract. Any attempt to enforce the contract duration term within such period by the employer would constitute “discharge” and attract the embargo specified in Section 12(2)(a) of the 1961 Act. The law creates a fiction in such a case by treating her to be in employment for the sole purpose of availing maternity benefits under the 1961 Act.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is pivotal in interpreting and reinforcing the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The purpose of this act has always been to ease the working environment for women. A recent amendment to the act “the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017”[4] increased paid maternity leave from 12 weeks to 26 weeks, with not more than eight weeks preceding the expected delivery date, and introduced the possibility of working from home based on mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. This highlights the attempts made at improving women’s participation in the labor force and enhancing the quality of their employment through legislative measures, including the Code on Social Security, 2020,[5] which mandates crèche facilities in establishments with 50 or more employees and allows women to work night shifts with adequate safety measures.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is significant as it clarifies the judicial interpretation of key provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, particularly for women engaged in non-standard contracts, such as fixed-term contracts. This decision lays a beneficial foundation for improved maternity protections at the workplace and sets a precedent for future cases, as evidenced by the Delhi High Court’s reliance on this ruling in Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Rehmat Fatima[6] to grant maternity benefits post-contract expiry. It highlights the need for employers to acknowledge the financial responsibility of extending maternity benefits beyond the contract term.
It could potentially affect cases where a woman has not started availing maternity benefits before her contract ends. This decision, thus, ensures that women who begin availing maternity benefits during their employment can continue to receive these benefits even after their contractual engagement ends, promoting fairness and addressing the genuine expectations of modern working women.
By ensuring that maternity benefits extend beyond the contractual period, the Court has aligned Indian practices with other national jurisdictions. In other countries including Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Somalia, and Tajikistan, the employer has a responsibility to find alternative employment to the employee after the expiry of fixed-term contracts. During the period in which alternative employment is being sought, wages are paid for three months from the day on which the fixed employment contract expires.[7]
[1] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1067.
[2] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
[3] (2000) 3 SCC 224
[4] PIB, “Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017”, (13 FEB 2023), available at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1898874#:~:text=Vide%20Section%205%20of%20the,the%20date%20of%20expected%20delivery.
[5] PIB, “Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017”, (13 FEB 2023), available at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1898874#:~:text=Vide%20Section%205%20of%20the,the%20date%20of%20expected%20delivery.
[6] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1749
[7] International Labour Organisation, “Maternity and Paternity at work: law and practice across the world”, )2014), available at https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/public