Cant differentiate between permanent and contractual employees on the issue of maternity benefits: Calcutta HC
Last Updated on February 27, 2024 by News Desk
Issue: A plea was filed by the petitioner who had been appointed as the executive intern at the RBI. The period of the same was for 3 three years from 2011. She had challenged the failure on the part of the bank to allow her 180 days of maternity leave. She was informed that she was not entitled to it and the leave would be considered as a leave without compensation.
Arguments: The counsel for the petitioner presented that the employment contract would be subservient to the Maternity Benefits Act as it is beneficial legislation. It is supposed to have an overriding effect.
It was also argued that RBI would fall under the Shops and Establishment Act of 1963.
The bank responded to the same by contending that the contract was accepted by the petitioner and it allowed leaves for the medical benefits.
It also argued that since the function of RBI is the regulation of banknotes it would not fall under the purview of the Shops and Establishment Act 1963.
Analysis:– The court identified that the legal issue in the case was whether the employee was entitled to leave under the Maternity Benefits Act.
The court noted that the act intended to do social justice to women.
It said that the plain reading of the act was suggestive that it would be universally applicable, anywhere where 10 or more people were employed.
It was also observed that RBI was providing maternity benefits to its employees and if the same was not being provided to the petitioner then it was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
“The same would be detrimental to the future of our country, a healthy mother and a healthy newborn child not only ensures the growth and development of the child but to the nation as well, as the child of today would be the force behind tomorrow’s development”
Conclusion:- The plea was allowed and RBI was given directions by the court to extend compensation to the petitioner along with leave with pay for the period for which the same was denied.
Case Title:- Neeta Kumari v Union of India & Ors WPA 29978 of 2013
Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)
